Dear Paul

Thanks for this post.  And - sorry - forgot to mention Pioneer Consensus in
the message preceding this one.  YOUR discussion board is also (in my
opinion) one of the few and best "userled" websites.

To remind people where to find you:
http://communities.msn.co.uk/pioneerconsensus

Best wishes.
Rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone."


----- Original Message -----
From: <mrpathm@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 3:46 AM
Subject: [mentalmagazine] Join the Pioneer Consensus survivor's and allies
community


> Hello,the Pioneer Consensus is an internet community for mental
> health survivor's and there allies. The purpose of it is to bring
> people together and enable people to post there views and inform on
> mental health issues.Other posts are also welcome, it is
> communication between us that is the most important thing. Please
> come and visit, it only takes two minutes to join. Let us show people
> that we can all link up and form independent group's on the net. This
> is probably the only way we are going to get an independent voice.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hello,the Pioneer Consensus is an internet community for mental
health survivor's and there allies. The purpose of it is to bring
people together and enable people to post there views and inform on
mental health issues.Other posts are also welcome, it is
communication between us that is the most important thing. Please
come and visit, it only takes two minutes to join. Let us show people
that we can all link up and form independent group's on the net. This
is probably the only way we are going to get an independent voice.

--- In mentalmagazine@y..., "ZYRA" <zyra@f...> wrote:
> This one could run and run.
>
> Zyra
>Yes this one can run and run, i've been silenced enough, labelling
is an important thing, you get better they cut the benefits and help,
you get worse they increase the benefits and help, social homeostasis
or negative feedback.

The only way out is to get a job and as this disabled guy puts it "We
can't all be rolemodels or there would be no one to be a role model
to2 or as my sister puts it "they don't want any cynical rolemodels"
i can't help my cynicism after spending a period rediagnosed refused
help when i was experiencing harrassment, as i say to the
psychiatrist , don't disabled people have a right to get depressed.
> www.zyra.org.uk
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ramboghettouk@h...>
> To: <mentalmagazine@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 12:33 AM
> Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: Political Correctness
>
>
> > --- In mentalmagazine@y..., "Rosemary Moore" <rosemary.moore@v...>
> > wrote:
> > > Dear Rambo
> > >
> > > Thanks for putting in your comment on the discussion about
> > Families.  You
> > > are the first person on my board (mentalmagazine) to react to
any
> > of the
> > > postings.
> > >
> > > What you say about it being easier for someone in a wheelchair
to
> > get help
> > > is not really so.  My brother has been in a wheelchair for 13
years
> > after
> > > jumping out of a hostel window in 1987, as well as being
treated for
> > > schizophrenia for over 30 years.  When he became disabled I was
> > surprised to
> > > see how similar the problems are with the mental illness care.
It's
> > > certainly easier to fight ON BEHALF of someone who is physically
> > disabled -
> > > though not easy - and if it's a disability like my brother's
which
> > is that
> > > he is completely paralysed from the waist down.  (If he had some
> > mobility
> > > that would make it much more difficult.)
> > > A lot of the problem, I think, stems from political correctness
> > about
> > > "labelling" which backfires onto the patient.  My late mother
who
> > was
> > > partially disabled with an arthritic hip, wrote a poem about the
> > DSS and the
> > > mounds of paper it took to get any of the benefits and that it
was
> > essential
> > > to have a label before the authorities would do anything - at
one
> > point she
> > > says "nothing will happen until I'm labelled."
> > >
> > > And getting back to the families issue, which this discussion
> > started with -
> > > there is just as much political correctness in the disabled
world
> > as there
> > > is with mental illness
> > > .
> > > I'd just like to mention here that my brother has coped
> > fantastically well
> > > with being partially paralysed.  He just gets on and makes the
most
> > of his
> > > life. The awful thing is that if he hadn't become paralysed I
> > wouldn't have
> > > been able to do as much for him - simply because the paralysis
> > can't be
> > > argued with.  But if I hadn't been there to fight for him and
look
> > after
> > > him, I'm sure he would be dead now.  The care is definitely NOT
> > there for
> > > the physically disabled and if you have and mental and physical
> > condition
> > > combined, forget it.
> > >
> > > As you know, on my website I quote the passage from Joseph
Heller's
> > Catch-22
> > > about not being mad if you say you're mad - and that's the real
> > problem, I
> > > think, for mental patients.  If you're in enough control to ask
for
> > help,
> > > it's assumed you are COMPLETELY in control of yourself and don't
> > need help.
> > >
> > >  You say, Rambo, that you USED to use the labelling theory and
> > ideas about
> > > the social creation of mental illness but then you didn't get
help -
> >  but do
> > > you get the help you want now?
> > >
> > > Best wishes.
> > > Rosemary
> > > www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
> > > "It's for everyone"
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <ramboghettouk@h...>
> > > To: <mentalmagazine@y...>
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 4:04 PM
> > > Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [disability-awareness] Families
> > > I used to use the labelling theory and ideas about the social
> > > creation of mental ilness but found social workers would claim
i was
> > > saying i wasn't ill and refuse help, now i've learnt the lesson,
> > it's
> > > funny they don't say that to people in wheelvhairs arguing the
> > social
> > > model, they can argue it and get help
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Philip Scullion <hsx168@c...>
> > > To: <disability-awareness@y...>; Magnus Linklater
> > > magnus.linklater@v...>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [disability-awareness] Families
> > > Thanks Rosemary
> > > No wish to go back to the non-disabled my nerves theme at all
but
> > > i have wondered if social model and disability activists has
been
> > > segragtionist.  Tending to assume disabled people are not part
of
> > > families.
> > > Philip
> >
> > I'm not sure if i get the help i want know, considering services,
> > theres not much i want, i would like a guaranteed income though, a
> > reference is useful for that, i do know about multiple
disabilitys, a
> > women i'm close to claims 9 disabnilitys, 8 if you don't seperate
> > schitsophrenia and depression, i would never deny her
difficulties,
> > she's living with family and says she hopes to die before her
> > parents, with the physical lot not accepting mental and the mental
> > lot not accepting physical it is difficult.
> >
> > Catch 22 says a lot, i8 read the sequal which talks about the
> > homeless people at the american bus station, the mentally ill guy
> > mentioned caused me to make decisions before the american welfare
> > state is introduvced, i also know people like the guy who was
> > homeless hearing voices in brighton, but has never been diagnosed,
> > who if he didn't have a charitable private landlord would be in
> > trouble.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> > This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> > URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

This one could run and run.

Zyra

www.zyra.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: <ramboghettouk@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 12:33 AM
Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: Political Correctness


> --- In mentalmagazine@y..., "Rosemary Moore" <rosemary.moore@v...>
> wrote:
> > Dear Rambo
> >
> > Thanks for putting in your comment on the discussion about
> Families.  You
> > are the first person on my board (mentalmagazine) to react to any
> of the
> > postings.
> >
> > What you say about it being easier for someone in a wheelchair to
> get help
> > is not really so.  My brother has been in a wheelchair for 13 years
> after
> > jumping out of a hostel window in 1987, as well as being treated for
> > schizophrenia for over 30 years.  When he became disabled I was
> surprised to
> > see how similar the problems are with the mental illness care.  It's
> > certainly easier to fight ON BEHALF of someone who is physically
> disabled -
> > though not easy - and if it's a disability like my brother's which
> is that
> > he is completely paralysed from the waist down.  (If he had some
> mobility
> > that would make it much more difficult.)
> > A lot of the problem, I think, stems from political correctness
> about
> > "labelling" which backfires onto the patient.  My late mother who
> was
> > partially disabled with an arthritic hip, wrote a poem about the
> DSS and the
> > mounds of paper it took to get any of the benefits and that it was
> essential
> > to have a label before the authorities would do anything - at one
> point she
> > says "nothing will happen until I'm labelled."
> >
> > And getting back to the families issue, which this discussion
> started with -
> > there is just as much political correctness in the disabled world
> as there
> > is with mental illness
> > .
> > I'd just like to mention here that my brother has coped
> fantastically well
> > with being partially paralysed.  He just gets on and makes the most
> of his
> > life. The awful thing is that if he hadn't become paralysed I
> wouldn't have
> > been able to do as much for him - simply because the paralysis
> can't be
> > argued with.  But if I hadn't been there to fight for him and look
> after
> > him, I'm sure he would be dead now.  The care is definitely NOT
> there for
> > the physically disabled and if you have and mental and physical
> condition
> > combined, forget it.
> >
> > As you know, on my website I quote the passage from Joseph Heller's
> Catch-22
> > about not being mad if you say you're mad - and that's the real
> problem, I
> > think, for mental patients.  If you're in enough control to ask for
> help,
> > it's assumed you are COMPLETELY in control of yourself and don't
> need help.
> >
> >  You say, Rambo, that you USED to use the labelling theory and
> ideas about
> > the social creation of mental illness but then you didn't get help -
>  but do
> > you get the help you want now?
> >
> > Best wishes.
> > Rosemary
> > www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
> > "It's for everyone"
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <ramboghettouk@h...>
> > To: <mentalmagazine@y...>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 4:04 PM
> > Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [disability-awareness] Families
> > I used to use the labelling theory and ideas about the social
> > creation of mental ilness but found social workers would claim i was
> > saying i wasn't ill and refuse help, now i've learnt the lesson,
> it's
> > funny they don't say that to people in wheelvhairs arguing the
> social
> > model, they can argue it and get help
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Philip Scullion <hsx168@c...>
> > To: <disability-awareness@y...>; Magnus Linklater
> > magnus.linklater@v...>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: [disability-awareness] Families
> > Thanks Rosemary
> > No wish to go back to the non-disabled my nerves theme at all but
> > i have wondered if social model and disability activists has been
> > segragtionist.  Tending to assume disabled people are not part of
> > families.
> > Philip
>
> I'm not sure if i get the help i want know, considering services,
> theres not much i want, i would like a guaranteed income though, a
> reference is useful for that, i do know about multiple disabilitys, a
> women i'm close to claims 9 disabnilitys, 8 if you don't seperate
> schitsophrenia and depression, i would never deny her difficulties,
> she's living with family and says she hopes to die before her
> parents, with the physical lot not accepting mental and the mental
> lot not accepting physical it is difficult.
>
> Catch 22 says a lot, i8 read the sequal which talks about the
> homeless people at the american bus station, the mentally ill guy
> mentioned caused me to make decisions before the american welfare
> state is introduvced, i also know people like the guy who was
> homeless hearing voices in brighton, but has never been diagnosed,
> who if he didn't have a charitable private landlord would be in
> trouble.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear Rosemary,

Thanks for that.

I already have a link on my site to Pioneer Consensus from the page on my
site: www.zyra.org.uk/madlinks.htm

Also, the Voices Forum has a domain registered at www.voicesforum.org.uk but
no website there yet. However there is an unofficial site here for Voices
Forum at www.zyra.org.uk/voices.htm and a page about the Voices
Self-Management Conference at www.zyra.org.uk/vconf.htm including the
original of that panoramic picture which is on the front page of the
Perceptions Magazine.

I'm not very good at joining forums, but would be willing to have reciprocal
links with groups generally, so please do help add to my site!

Regards,

Zyra

www.zyra.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: Rosemary Moore <rosemary.moore@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>; <criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:54 PM
Subject: [mentalmagazine] Pioneer Consensus (user discussion board)


> Pioneer ConsensusI'm forwarding this statement from the Pioneer Consensus
> (Birmingham based UK) site and hope that you'll take a look at Paul's
> discussion board at http://communities.msn.co.uk/PioneerConsensus.
>
> I found this site thru an article in the first issue (Autumn 2000) Voices
> Forum magazine "Perceptions".  The Voices Forum is the user arm of the
> National Schizophrenia Fellowship.  Voices Forum does not have a website
but
> the nsf has a site at www.nsf.org.uk
>
> Regards.
> Rosemary
> www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
> "Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"
>
>
> The PIONEER CONSENSUS is an internet based  community for survivors of the
> mental health system and their allies who feel frustrated that they do not
> have a voice at the moment and would like to publish their views on the
> internet and take part in discussions with other survivors and allies on
all
> matters relating to mental health and other topics of interest or who
would
> just like to relate personal experiences or obtain support from like
minded
> people.
>
> We believe mental health organisations and the people who work in them are
> in the public domain as they are funded by the public and as such should
be
> open to constructive criticism in order to improve their performances and
> services that are provided to the public.In mental health this is
something
> that is subtly discouraged at the moment. Other industries provide their
> services according to this model and it is recognised as the most
effective
> way of providing services, and we feel this should also apply to the
mental
> health industry as well.
>
> We want as consumers of mental health services a consumer partnership that
> recognises that in order to provide efficient and effective services
mental
> health organisations should listen and act on constructive criticism of
> their services from consumers.
>
> This consumer partnership is seen by commercial companies as the most
> effective way of delivering services. It is recognised that consumers can
> oftern have insights and views on services that can help in improving the
> quality of services. This model should operate in the public sector as
well.
>
>  Members can express their views freely in the community, although we ask
> for people to be reasonable and constructive in any criticism they may
have
> of mental health organisations and individuals who work in them, and to
take
> responsibility for what they publish. The freedom to express your views
must
> also go along with the individual taking responsibility for those views
and
> the effect they may have.
>
> Why is there a need for such a facility? At the moment there is a shortage
> of mediums that allows survivors and allies to freely express their views
> and criticism concerning mental health and mental health organisations and
> the people that work in them. This is because most so called survivors or
> users groups and news media are not independent and are funded by mental
> health organisations which discourage criticism of those organisations by
> subtle coercion. Even reasonable criticism which could be used as a means
to
> improve services.
>
> So if your frustrated at not been heard or stopped from giving what you
feel
> is constructive criticism at meetings or at non-independent survivors
groups
> and by non-independent media (newsletters etc.) join now.
>
> You probably will want to join if you fall into one or more of the
familiar
> categories
> below:-
>
> 1) You have no voice at all at the moment;
> 2)You can't get your articles published in newsletters or they ask you to
> edit them or they say they are not suitable;
> 3) You go to meetings with the professionals but feel everything is set up
> against you. The agenda is controlled by them and the co-opted survivors
> they fund; you can't operate within the political environment of the
> meeting; they use language and ploys which excludes and frustrates you
when
> you offer constructive criticism they don't want to hear;
> 4) You have been excluded from meetings because you offer constructive
> criticism and have been stereotyped as agressive because you assertively
> raise issues they don't want to deal with;
> 5) Your user group/ survivors group controls what goes in the minutes of
> meetings and subtly censors criticism of funding organisations;
> 6) Other survivors or users who have been co-opted by mental health
> organisations don't represent your interests or seem to work against you;
>
> Where to join(applies to Birmingham uk) if you have not got a computer
with
> internet access:-
>
> The following places offer free internet access: The Angle Gallery, On new
> Street; The Central Library; Local libraries.
>
> How to join( two ways)
>
> 1) Point your browser at MSN network home page; click on web communities;
> find your way to the web community Pioneer Consensus which is on the UK
> sites;
> 2) Put this address in your browser it will take you straight there:
> http://communities.msn.co.uk/PioneerConsensus.
>
> Paul
> Pioneer Consensus
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Pioneer ConsensusI'm forwarding this statement from the Pioneer Consensus
(Birmingham based UK) site and hope that you'll take a look at Paul's
discussion board at http://communities.msn.co.uk/PioneerConsensus.

I found this site thru an article in the first issue (Autumn 2000) Voices
Forum magazine "Perceptions".  The Voices Forum is the user arm of the
National Schizophrenia Fellowship.  Voices Forum does not have a website but
the nsf has a site at www.nsf.org.uk

Regards.
Rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"


The PIONEER CONSENSUS is an internet based  community for survivors of the
mental health system and their allies who feel frustrated that they do not
have a voice at the moment and would like to publish their views on the
internet and take part in discussions with other survivors and allies on all
matters relating to mental health and other topics of interest or who would
just like to relate personal experiences or obtain support from like minded
people.

We believe mental health organisations and the people who work in them are
in the public domain as they are funded by the public and as such should be
open to constructive criticism in order to improve their performances and
services that are provided to the public.In mental health this is something
that is subtly discouraged at the moment. Other industries provide their
services according to this model and it is recognised as the most effective
way of providing services, and we feel this should also apply to the mental
health industry as well.

We want as consumers of mental health services a consumer partnership that
recognises that in order to provide efficient and effective services mental
health organisations should listen and act on constructive criticism of
their services from consumers.

This consumer partnership is seen by commercial companies as the most
effective way of delivering services. It is recognised that consumers can
oftern have insights and views on services that can help in improving the
quality of services. This model should operate in the public sector as well.

  Members can express their views freely in the community, although we ask
for people to be reasonable and constructive in any criticism they may have
of mental health organisations and individuals who work in them, and to take
responsibility for what they publish. The freedom to express your views must
also go along with the individual taking responsibility for those views and
the effect they may have.

Why is there a need for such a facility? At the moment there is a shortage
of mediums that allows survivors and allies to freely express their views
and criticism concerning mental health and mental health organisations and
the people that work in them. This is because most so called survivors or
users groups and news media are not independent and are funded by mental
health organisations which discourage criticism of those organisations by
subtle coercion. Even reasonable criticism which could be used as a means to
improve services.

So if your frustrated at not been heard or stopped from giving what you feel
is constructive criticism at meetings or at non-independent survivors groups
and by non-independent media (newsletters etc.) join now.

You probably will want to join if you fall into one or more of the familiar
categories
below:-

1) You have no voice at all at the moment;
2)You can't get your articles published in newsletters or they ask you to
edit them or they say they are not suitable;
3) You go to meetings with the professionals but feel everything is set up
against you. The agenda is controlled by them and the co-opted survivors
they fund; you can't operate within the political environment of the
meeting; they use language and ploys which excludes and frustrates you when
you offer constructive criticism they don't want to hear;
4) You have been excluded from meetings because you offer constructive
criticism and have been stereotyped as agressive because you assertively
raise issues they don't want to deal with;
5) Your user group/ survivors group controls what goes in the minutes of
meetings and subtly censors criticism of funding organisations;
6) Other survivors or users who have been co-opted by mental health
organisations don't represent your interests or seem to work against you;

Where to join(applies to Birmingham uk) if you have not got a computer with
internet access:-

The following places offer free internet access: The Angle Gallery, On new
Street; The Central Library; Local libraries.

How to join( two ways)

1) Point your browser at MSN network home page; click on web communities;
find your way to the web community Pioneer Consensus which is on the UK
sites;
2) Put this address in your browser it will take you straight there:
http://communities.msn.co.uk/PioneerConsensus.

Paul
Pioneer Consensus

Dear mentalmagazine board members:

SANE Mental Health Forum:
Controversies in the treatment of psychoses

I'm forwarding this message from the psychiatric nursing board about a 2-day
conference in May which was posted to the board by Nigel Wellman, Consultant
Nurse in Mental Health, West Berkshire Priority Care Service NHS Trust.

As you can see from the end of the message, this meeting is being organised
for the SANE Mental Health Forum by Darwin Medical Communications Ltd and
costs £105 each day or £175 for two days.  It will be held at the Barbican
Centre in London.

The proceedings should be audio/video recorded and conference papers
submitted, and I am going to get in touch with SANE (Marjorie Wallace) to
see if transcripts can be made of the meeting and any conference papers made
available.  I will also try to get Marjorie and other participants of this
conference to discuss the issues on these boards.

Rosemary
Mental Magazine uk
"Campaigining for good health & social care...it's for everyone"


----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Wellman <nigel.wellman@...>
To: <PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@...>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 8:38 PM
Subject: Advert: SANE Mental Health Forum


> SANE Mental Health Forum: Controversies in the treatment of psychoses
>
> Barbican Centre, London, 24-25 May 2001
>
> The meeting will consist of six debates on topical issues, with speakers
> taking opposing, or at least differing, points of view on the basis of the
> evidence, as they see it. Initial presentations will be followed by a
> roundtable discussion with invited participants, and contributions from
the
> floor.
>
> Thursday 24 May
>
> Registration from 09.00
>
> 09.30-10.45 - Welcome Reception
>
> 10.45-11.00 - Introduction
> Professor Tim Crow - Chairman
> Marjorie Wallace - SANE
>
> 11.00-12.45 - Debate 1: Does early intervention have long-term benefits?
>
> Chairman Thomas Barnes (Imperial College, London)
>
> Pro     Patrick Power (Maudsley Hospital, London)
>
> Con     Richard Warner (Boulder, CO, USA)
>
> Commentaries
> Peter Jones (Cambridge) Early intervention for what?
> Don Linszen (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 5-year follow-up is salutary
> Phil McGuire (Institute of Psychiatry, London) Is there early progressive
> brain change?
>
> Discussants
> Lynn DeLisi (New York, NY, USA)
> Max Birchwood (Birmingham)
> Shôn Lewis (Manchester)
>
> Lunch
>
> 14.15-16.00 - Debate 2: Is D2 antagonism the sole mechanism of the
> antipsychotic effect?
>
> Chairman Paul Harrison (Oxford)
>
> Pro     Shitij Kapur (Toronto, Canada)
>
> Con     Josee Leysen (Beerse, Belgium) The critical role of the 5HT2A
receptor
>
> Con     Bill Deakin (Manchester) Atypicals may correct the primary
disturbance
> of glutamate transmission
>
> Discussants
> David Sanger (Paris, France)
> Rob Kerwin (Institute of Psychiatry, London)
> Gavin Reynolds (Sheffield)
>
> 16.00-16.30 - Tea/coffee
>
> 16.30-18.15 - Debate 3: Are atypical antipsychotics a leap forwards?
>
> Chairman Robin Murray (Institute of Psychiatry, London)
>
> Pro     John Kane (New York, NY, USA) The case for atypicals: why is
clozapine
> so effective?
>
> Con     John Geddes (Oxford) Neuroleptics versus atypical antipsychotics:
is
> the difference dosage?
>
> Commentary
> Clive Adams (Oxford) Are there convincing arguments either way?
>
> Discussants
> Nick Freemantle (Birmingham) Do the costs outweigh the benefits?
> Shitij Kapur (Toronto, Canada)
>
>
> Friday 25 May
>
> 09.00-10.45 - Debate 4: What are the relative merits of psychological and
> pharmacological treatments?
>
> Chairman Philippa Garety (Institute of Psychiatry, London) What can we
> expect from psychological treatments?
>
> Contributors
> Til Wykes (Institute of Psychiatry, London) A temporary change in thinking
> style
> Douglas Turkington (Newcastle) CBT has effects that are large and
> long-lasting
> Gerard Hogarty (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)Current evidence on the relative
> efficacy of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments
>
> Discussants
> Richard Bentall (Manchester)
> Max Birchwood (Birmingham)
> Shôn Lewis (Manchester)
>
> Tea/coffee - 10.45-11.15
>
> 11.15-13.00 - Debate 5: Can suicide/murder be predicted?
>
> Chairman Christopher Cordess (Sheffield and Rampton Hospital)
>
> Contributors
> Jennifer Shaw (Manchester) Some suicides can be predicted
> Caroline Logan (Liverpool and Ashworth Hospital) The science of murder
> prediction: current practice and future directions
> George Szmukler (Maudsley Hospital, London) Clinical prediction in the
real
> world
> Nigel Eastman (St George's Hospital, London) How should an ethical public
> policy on
> violence be decided?
> Marjorie Wallace (SANE) Enquiries: the benefit of hindsight
>
> Discussants
> Keith Hawton (Oxford)
> Frank Holloway (Institute of Psychiatry, London)
>
> Lunch - Ad hoc Moral Maze: Does schizophrenia exist?
>
> 14.30-16.15 - Debate 6: Hospital beds or community care: which is most in
> need of support?
>
> Chairman Steven Hirsch (Charing Cross Hospital, London)
>
> Contributors
> Martin Deahl (St Bartholomew's Hospital, London) In-patient facilities are
> critical
> Sashi Sashidharan (Birmingham) Why we should shift the focus of mental
> health care from the hospital into the community
> Max Marshall (Manchester) Why do so many Government treatment initiatives
go
> ahead of the evidence?
>
> Discussants
> Peter Tyrer (Imperial College, London)
> Tom Burns (St George's Hospital, London)
> Julian Leff (Institute of Psychiatry, London)
>
> Closing remarks         Professor Tim Crow
>
> Registration fees
>
> 24 May  £105
> 25 May  £105
> 24 & 25 May     £175
>
> Registration fees are inclusive of VAT. Early registration is recommended
as
> numbers are limited.
>
> Please contact the conference secretariat for further details:
>
> Darwin Medical Communications Ltd
> 13 Napier Court
> Abingdon Science Park
> Abingdon
> Oxfordshire OX14 3YT
>
> Tel:  01235 555344
> Fax  10235 558240
> E-mail:  conf@...
>
>
> Nigel Wellman
> Consultant Nurse in Mental Health
> West Berkshire Priority Care Service NHS Trust
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe send the message 'leave psychiatric-nursing'
> to jiscmail@...
>

--- In mentalmagazine@y..., "Rosemary Moore" <rosemary.moore@v...>
wrote:
> Dear Rambo
>
> Thanks for putting in your comment on the discussion about
Families.  You
> are the first person on my board (mentalmagazine) to react to any
of the
> postings.
>
> What you say about it being easier for someone in a wheelchair to
get help
> is not really so.  My brother has been in a wheelchair for 13 years
after
> jumping out of a hostel window in 1987, as well as being treated for
> schizophrenia for over 30 years.  When he became disabled I was
surprised to
> see how similar the problems are with the mental illness care.  It's
> certainly easier to fight ON BEHALF of someone who is physically
disabled -
> though not easy - and if it's a disability like my brother's which
is that
> he is completely paralysed from the waist down.  (If he had some
mobility
> that would make it much more difficult.)
> A lot of the problem, I think, stems from political correctness
about
> "labelling" which backfires onto the patient.  My late mother who
was
> partially disabled with an arthritic hip, wrote a poem about the
DSS and the
> mounds of paper it took to get any of the benefits and that it was
essential
> to have a label before the authorities would do anything - at one
point she
> says "nothing will happen until I'm labelled."
>
> And getting back to the families issue, which this discussion
started with -
> there is just as much political correctness in the disabled world
as there
> is with mental illness
> .
> I'd just like to mention here that my brother has coped
fantastically well
> with being partially paralysed.  He just gets on and makes the most
of his
> life. The awful thing is that if he hadn't become paralysed I
wouldn't have
> been able to do as much for him - simply because the paralysis
can't be
> argued with.  But if I hadn't been there to fight for him and look
after
> him, I'm sure he would be dead now.  The care is definitely NOT
there for
> the physically disabled and if you have and mental and physical
condition
> combined, forget it.
>
> As you know, on my website I quote the passage from Joseph Heller's
Catch-22
> about not being mad if you say you're mad - and that's the real
problem, I
> think, for mental patients.  If you're in enough control to ask for
help,
> it's assumed you are COMPLETELY in control of yourself and don't
need help.
>
>  You say, Rambo, that you USED to use the labelling theory and
ideas about
> the social creation of mental illness but then you didn't get help -
  but do
> you get the help you want now?
>
> Best wishes.
> Rosemary
> www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
> "It's for everyone"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ramboghettouk@h...>
> To: <mentalmagazine@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 4:04 PM
> Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [disability-awareness] Families
> I used to use the labelling theory and ideas about the social
> creation of mental ilness but found social workers would claim i was
> saying i wasn't ill and refuse help, now i've learnt the lesson,
it's
> funny they don't say that to people in wheelvhairs arguing the
social
> model, they can argue it and get help
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Philip Scullion <hsx168@c...>
> To: <disability-awareness@y...>; Magnus Linklater
> magnus.linklater@v...>
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [disability-awareness] Families
> Thanks Rosemary
> No wish to go back to the non-disabled my nerves theme at all but
> i have wondered if social model and disability activists has been
> segragtionist.  Tending to assume disabled people are not part of
> families.
> Philip

I'm not sure if i get the help i want know, considering services,
theres not much i want, i would like a guaranteed income though, a
reference is useful for that, i do know about multiple disabilitys, a
women i'm close to claims 9 disabnilitys, 8 if you don't seperate
schitsophrenia and depression, i would never deny her difficulties,
she's living with family and says she hopes to die before her
parents, with the physical lot not accepting mental and the mental
lot not accepting physical it is difficult.

Catch 22 says a lot, i8 read the sequal which talks about the
homeless people at the american bus station, the mentally ill guy
mentioned caused me to make decisions before the american welfare
state is introduvced, i also know people like the guy who was
homeless hearing voices in brighton, but has never been diagnosed,
who if he didn't have a charitable private landlord would be in
trouble.

Below are:
1.    A statement from Incapacity Action with which Kate Adams challenged
JUDI CLEMENTS (then CE of the MIND) on 7 June 2000 at the Parliamentary
lobby organised by the "Mental Health Alliance".  I posted this statement to
several boards last year.
2.    A posting to the UKSurvivors board today from Judy Scott about the
Government plans to restrict Therapeutic Earnings.
3.    The briefing by Judy Scott attached to her message to the UKSurvivors
board.

Rosemary


INCAPACITY ACTION
104 CORNWALLIS CIRCLE
WHITSTABLE, KENT CT5 1AT

DISABLED PEOPLE SAY NO COMPULSORY DRUG TREATMENT ORDERS OR
FORCED LABOUR LINKED TO BENEFIT CLAIMS,  WHY IS MIND INVOLVED WITH THE
SINGLE GATEWAY?

Campaigners from Incapacity Action and Win Visible are supporting the lobby
of Parliament organised by the Mental Health Alliance on June 7th. We oppose
the compulsory drug treatment orders and detention of those diagnosed as
having a "personality disorder" who have committed no crime proposed in the
Government Green Paper which reviews the 1983 Mental Health Act.

We also condemn the Government's Welfare Reform Act 1999 which cut
disability benefits by £750 million whilst imposing the Work Focused
Interview of the Single Gateway for benefit claims currently being piloted
which will be implemented nationally in 2001. The Gateway compels disabled
people including those with mental illness, alongside single mothers and
carers to take part in an interview about their work prospects if they wish
to claim Housing Benefit, Income Support and disability benefits. Failure to
comply will mean benefit is reduced and new claims considered void.
Claimants of Incapacity Benefit also face an additional Personal Capability
Assessment carried out by a DSS doctor. This will be passed on to a
"Personal Advisor" and even those who pass the All Work test may be called
in to make a "Back to Work Plan". This is clearly an invasion of civil
rights.

We are horrified to learn that Mind who are involved in the current lobby
protecting the interests of mental health system survivors are also
participating in the pilots for Single Gateway. A Social Security Select
Committee Inquiry associated with hospital admission, self harm, and death
by suicide for those with mental illness. We are aware of five deaths linked
to the All Work  Test, three of which are suicides and a serious case of
personal injury. The Committee also found examples of racism from the now
privatised DSS doctors.Two complaints made to the Commission for Racial
Equality were upheld in court under the Race Relation Act.

Alison Cobb from Mind has defended their involvement with the Single Gateway
by stating:
"Mind lobbied for the work focused interviews introduced by the Welfare
Reform Bill to be voluntary, our concerns have not changed but as the system
is going ahead we see it as our responsibility to respond to consultations
and feed into training of advisers. We have the same concerns about the
personal capability assessment. However the work focused interviews do have
the potential to be helpful."

Have Mind been pressurised by the Government to retract their position? Will
they also        support compulsory drug treatment orders if they become
law? Compulsory work focused interviews and tests linked to benefit cuts
must be unconditionally opposed. Co-operation with the system weakens
opposition. Survivors and indeed all disabled people deserve better.

Contact Incapacity Action on 01227 276159 and Win Visible on 020 7482 2496
voice/minicom
(Statement issued by Incapacity Action at the Mental Health Alliance lobby 7
June 2000.)

> >From: Judyscott1@...
> >Reply-To: uksurvivors@yahoogroups.com
> >To: uksurvivors@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [uksurvivors] Proposals to limit therapeutic earnings to one
year
> >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:58:56 EST
> >Hi, I'm contacting UK Survivors because you may want to know about a DSS
> >plan in the pipeline . Mary Nettle , MIND Link said that I could post my
briefing
> >paper here. People claiming benefits because of ill health or disability
> >have to go through DSS procedures in order to be allowed to do any paid
> >work.This is called the therapeutic earnings concession. The DSS are
planning to
> >limit this to one year.WHY? Because they say that "one year is enough
then you
> >should come off benefits and get a job" If you disagree you can write to
> >the two DSS Ministers , Angela Eagle MP and Hugh Bayley MP at Richmond
House
> >,79 Whitehall London SW1A 2NS  Best to do this BEFORE the DSS make a
formal
> >announcement . Regards Judy Scott See (attached) paper   BELOW.....


BRIEFING PAPER


PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE THERAPEUTIC EARNINGS CONCESSION TO ONE YEAR:
IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING BENEFITS

CONTENTS



         SUMMARY Page 2


PART I Introduction Page 3
  Therapeutic Earnings Concession: An Explanation Pages 4-7


PART II Response to the Proposal Pages 8-9


PART III Potential Outcomes of Proposed Pilot Pages 10-11


SUMMARY

PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE THERAPEUTIC EARNINGS CONCESSION TO ONE YEAR:
IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING BENEFITS

Supposition: "One year of earning on the therapeutic earnings concession is
sufficient.  Claimants should then move into employment of 16 hours a week
off benefits and use the Disabled Persons Tax Credit as appropriate."

Issues:

1. The proposal is not based on evidence
  The Analytical Services Division have no statistics available on use of the
Therapeutic Earnings Concession.  We are not aware of any research studies
or pilots which have tested the supposition.


2. Most claimants do not have access to the full £60.50 therapeutic earnings
set by Parliament to allow up to 16 hours a week work.

2.1 Those with a fixed condition are not permitted to use the Therapeutic
Earnings Concession.  Claimants with a severe learning disability, people
who are blind or deaf are refused access to any paid work whatsoever.

2.2 Claimants of Income Support for incapacity (992,000 people) and
claimants for housing costs, whether for rental or for mortgage interest
have been limited to £15 a week disregard on earnings.

2.3 The raised disregard to £20 a week allows just 5 hours 24 minutes work a
week at the Minimum Wage Rate.  This does not provide a bridge into work.

3. 2.9 million people are claiming benefits on grounds of ill health or
disability.  No paid work at all is permitted without use of the Therapeutic
Earnings Concession.

3.1 The DfEE Report 'Jobs For All' refers to the "corrosive . / . effect of
prolonged lack of paid work on people's self-confidence and inter-personal
skills.  What employers want most is people with commitment, determination
and self-discipline.  But these are exactly the qualities which people
deprived of work for long periods lose or have little opportunity to
  acquire"

3.2 Paid work is beneficial for mental health, alleviating poverty and
social exclusion.

3.3 Disabled people see work as a civil right.  Part-capacity to work is a
reality.  Benefit rules should facilitate work.

BRIEFING PAPER                                                         FEB.
2001
PART I



PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE THERAPEUTIC EARNINGS CONCESSION TO ONE YEAR:
IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING BENEFITS


1. Introduction

The Government are considering changes to the therapeutic earnings
concession and are seeking the views of those who have an interest in this
matter.

We understand that two proposed changes are under consideration.


1. To remove the requirement to obtain a medical recommendation for the
work.  The purpose is to allow claimants to obtain a foothold in open
employment through therapeutic work.  At present delays of months usually
occur before permission is given.  The delays prevent people accessing open
employment opportunities as employers will not wait to fill a vacancy.


2. To limit access to the therapeutic earnings concession, at £60.50 a week
from April 2001, to one year.

It is thought that one year of earnings is sufficient.  The claimant should
then move into employment of 16 hours plus a week, off benefits and use the
wage top-up Disabled Persons Tax Credit as appropriate.




The first proposal is welcomed.
The second proposal raises concerns for disabled people.


2. The Therapeutic Earnings Concession: an explanation

Who can use the Therapeutic Earnings Concession?

The Concession is available to some people who are claiming benefits on
grounds of the DSS criteria ' incapacity for work'.  The 'incapacity for
work' may be caused by ill health and/or disability, mental illness,
arthritis, multiple sclerosis, learning disability, paraplegia, etc.

There are a reported 2.9 million people of working age *i claiming benefits
on grounds of 'incapacity for work'.  Criteria for eligibility vary
according to the different benefit which is claimed.  There are three
alternative main income benefits which may be claimed: these are Severe
Disablement Allowance, Income Support for incapacity and Incapacity Benefit.

The three benefits have one criteria in common: no paid work at all is
permitted without special permission being granted through the Therapeutic
Earnings Concession.

Only some people claiming benefits on grounds of 'incapacity for work' can,
however, use the Therapeutic Earnings Concession.  This is because the work
must "help to improve, prevent or delay deterioration in the disease or
bodily disablement which causes the person's incapacity for work" or "is
part of a treatment programme and is done under medical supervision while a
person is an in-patient, or regularly attending as an out-patient of a
hospital or similar institution" or "is done in a sheltered institution for
people with disabilities".

People who have a fixed health condition or disability which would not
benefit from some paid work, do not have access to the Therapeutic Earnings
Concession (unless paid work is provided as part of a treatment
programme/under medical supervision, etc.).

People with a severe learning disability, people who are blind or deaf may
therefore be excluded from access to the Therapeutic Earnings Concession and
therefore are excluded from any paid work during their claim for DSS
benefits.


Can any claimants earn and retain the full £60.50 a week on top of DSS
benefits?

There are four issues here:

(i) Entitlement to earn up to £60.50 whilst claiming benefit
(ii) Ability to obtain and undertake the work
(iii) Liability to pay tax and NI on earnings
(iv) Means tested benefits have a £15 disregard limit


(i) Entitlement to earn up to £60.50 a week whilst claiming benefit

  People who have a health condition and/or a disability which a specific
work is thought to help, to improve or to prevent or to delay deterioration
of, etc. and who claim either Severe Disablement Allowance and/or Income
Support for incapacity and/or Incapacity Benefit and who have obtained
medical and DSS approval for therapeutic work, are entitled to earn up to
£60.50 a week.


(ii) Ability to obtain the work and capacity to undertake the work

  A job of up to 16 hours a week is usually recruited for on a competitive
basis by employers.  Those unable to fulfil the criteria for the job will
not be appointed.  Stigma and prejudice may disadvantage candidates with
health problems and/or disability.

  Capacity to undertake the work and to do so reliably and consistently may
be affected by fluctuating  health conditions: e.g. arthritis and mental
illness, and by continued ill health and/or disability.

  Reduced capacity for work may affect the number of hours per week which can
be worked, the type of work which may be undertaken, and the level of
earnings (above the Minimum Wage).

  Use of the therapeutic earnings concession may therefore be for just a few
hours a week of work, or for the full 16 hours for just a few weeks of a
year.


(iii) Liability to pay tax and NI on earnings

  Incapacity Benefit is taxable.  Severe Disablement Allowance and Income
Support are not taxable (but see below for disregard limits).

  A claimant receiving £74 Incapacity Benefit and earning £60.50 therapeutic
earnings consistently during a year will be liable to pay £13 tax and NI per
week.

  The actual earnings after deductions will be £47.50 a week.


(iv) Means testing and lower disregard limits

  Income Support for incapacity is means tested.

  There are 992,000 disabled Income Support claimants.

  Severe Disablement Allowance is a low level benefit which is usually topped
up by Income Support.
  Severe Disablement Allowance is not means tested but the Income Support top
up is means tested.

The means testing for Income Support for incapacity is applied to any income
over £15 a week (£20 a week from April 2001).

Income/earnings over £15 (£20) a week is deducted £1 for £1 from the Income
Support for incapacity.

Housing and Council Tax Benefits are means tested.

The HB and CTB means testing are applied to any income over £15 a week (£20
a week from April 2001).

Income/earnings over £15 (£20) a week is deducted from Housing Benefit at 65
pence for £1 income, and from Council Tax Benefit at 20 pence for £1 income.

Impact of means testing and lower disregard limits:

Anecdotal evidence from disability groups suggests that very few people
indeed seek to earn over the disregard limits for Income Support for
incapacity or Housing/Council Tax Benefits.

Claimants avoid benefit disruption which follows notification of earnings.
For Income Support claimants notification results in the withdrawal of the
Giro book.  Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit payments may be stopped
pending a reassessment.  For those without savings this is disastrous.


The Minimum Wage, Therapeutic Earnings and disregard limits

The Minimum Wage should normally be paid where the work is done under a
verbal or written contract and is paid.  Many people are therefore limited
to working no more than 5 hours 24 minutes a week (£20 divided by £3.70).

5 hours plus a week work does not provide a stepping stone into employment.


How many people use the Therapeutic Earnings Concession, how much do they
earn and how long do they continue on Therapeutic Earnings?

No statistics are available on use of the Therapeutic Earnings Concession.


Does the Therapeutic Earnings Concession provide a stepping stone into
employment?

Access to 16 hours work at the Minimum Wage level is limited to a very small
number of claimants indeed: Claimants of Incapacity Benefit, who have no
housing costs (own home outright with no mortgage interest and are exempt
from Council Tax) and who fulfil the criteria for health or disability type
for Therapeutic Earnings.


How many people are in this situation?

No statistics are available.


How many people have moved into work following one year on the Therapeutic
Earnings Concession?

No statistics are available.


PART II

RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE THERAPEUTIC EARNINGS CONCESSION TO ONE
YEAR


At the time of writing no details of the proposal are available.  We have
some questions and comments for the consideration of the DSS.


Is the proposal based on behavioural evidence or a research study?

The DSS Analytical Services Division have no records available on the
numbers of people who are making use of the therapeutic earnings concession.

Our briefing describes how access to the £60.50 Earnings Concession is
restricted to a very small number of Incapacity Benefit claimants indeed:
Those who have no housing costs because they are living with a partner or
parents who themselves have no housing costs, or those claimants who own
their home outright.

Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support for incapacity claimants
have been restricted to £15 a week (£20 from April 2001) as have Housing and
Council Tax Benefit claimants.

The DSS Policy Unit and DfEE Adult Disadvantage Dept. are not aware of any
research/evaluation studies in this area.


Does access to the full Therapeutic Earnings Concession provide a bridge
into employment or a disincentive to move from a Benefits claim?

As has been shown, the vast majority of the 2.9 million people who are of
working age and are claiming benefits because of ill health and/or
disability have either  not been able to earn above £15 a week (£20 from
April) or have not been permitted to do any paid work at all.

The minimal few who are exceptions to this general rule will have paid tax
and NI on their earnings.


Has lack of access to 16hrs a week part time paid work provided an incentive
to move into employment?

The numbers of people of working age and claiming sickness and/or disability
benefits rose by 98 thousand between August 97 and August 2000

This rise is contrary to the downward trend in the overall numbers:
unemployed, 1.6 million in August 97; reduced to 1 million.in August 2000 *.


Recommendation for a Pilot and an Evaluation

Access to the full Therapeutic Earning Concession has not been tested.  We
recommend that a Pilot programme is developed in order to evaluate a new
form of the Therapeutic Earnings Concession.   Access to up to 16 hours work
a week would be made available to all claimants for ill health and/or
disability.

Lambeith, Southwark & Lewisham Health Action Zone have proposed such a Pilot
and Evaluation.*2



PART III

POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF PROPOSED PILOT

Evaluation

The incentives/disincentives of access to the full Therapeutic Earnings
Concession  and resulting progress into employment may be properly evaluated
and measured for future policy making.


Equal Opportunities are fulfilled

Discrimination between claimants with equal levels of disadvantage in the
labour market caused by sickness and/or disability will be abolished.

Access to paid work up to 16 hours a week will be welcomed.  A potential
bridge to employment will be provided to all claimants.  Sick and disabled
people will have access to part time paid work as and when their health and
disability allows..


Social inclusion and poverty

The proposal will work with Government aims.  Access to some part time
earnings alleviates poverty without placing a demand on the Exchequer.

Incapacity Benefit claimants who succeed in earning the full £60.50 will be
contributing tax and NI.

Employment promotes social inclusion.


SHOULD THE PILOT PLACE A ONE YEAR LIMIT ON ACCESS TO THERAPEUTIC
EARNINGS/EXEMPT WORK?

Issues arising for a Pilot and for National proposals

1. Will people with fluctuating health conditions be able to access a second
or third year, or more, of earnings after a relapse?

People with severe and enduring mental health problems may experience a
number of relapses and admissions to hospital.  Some experience relapses as
frequently as twice a year.  Differing responses to treatments can extend
hospital admissions.  The process of rehabilitation may be needed after each
and every relapse.  Some people with mental health problems experience
relapses throughout their lifetime.

Will access to exempt earnings be made available following a
health/disability relapse?  How will this operate?


2. Will low earnings affect the duration of the Concession?

(a) Where people earn below the full £60.50 allowed because their earning
capacity is reduced by ill health and/or disability  or lack of part time
job opportunities, will the 'year limit' be extended?

  Many people with mental health problems earn very low amounts during a
recovery period, perhaps £5 a week or less.

(b) Where people start the 'year limit' but fall ill and are unable to do
any work at all for the remainder of the period, will the limit be extended?
How will this operate?


3. After the 'one year limit' is used up: what then?

Research demonstrates that self-belief and self-efficacy are crucial to an
individuals employability.*3 People must know that they can obtain and
sustain working before they will take a significant risk with their income.

The DfEE Report 'Jobs For All' refers to "the corrosive and combined effect
of poor formal qualifications and prolonged lack of paid work on people's
self-confidence and inter-personal skills".  "What employers want most is
people with commitment, determination and self-discipline.  But these are
exactly the qualities which people deprived of work for long periods lose or
have little opportunity to acquire." *4

Is it intended to bar people of working age from access to any part time
paid work after the one year limit is used up?  Disabled people see the
right to work as a civil right.

Judy Scott   Feb 2001
Tel & Fax: (020) 8539 5609
Email: judyscott1@...

1*       Analytical Services Division, Dept. of Social Security First
Release 22nd  Feb 2001

2*      Benefits Flexibility  Pilot - a Proposal  for the Lambeth, Southwark
and Lewisham Health Action Zone  July 2000 Available from Tony Coggins ,
South London and Maudsley NHS Mental Health Trust Tel 020 8297 0707 ext 248

3* Institute of Applied Health and Social Policy, Kings College: Research
Evidence on Employability and Vocational Models for people with mental
illness.  Helen Membrey 2000.

4* DfEE 'Jobs for All' 2000 Chapter 2  Setting Our Sights para 2.33.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>

Thanks for joining this discussion board, Cazie.

Please add details of your website to the "Bookmarks" section of this board.
And if you'd like to post a message to the board telling us a bit about the
site and how you started it, that would be good.
(http://www.geocities.com/cazie)

As you know, I spotted a reference to your site in the new Internet
magazine - "It's on the Net" (sold in Smiths), which has a section about
mental health sites.

Only 9 sites are listed - two of them unavailable!

Your site is described as:
"One woman's campaign to assist others, chat room, message board.  Homely."

I think your site is great and congratulations on getting noticed by the
Internet media!

Very best wishes.
Rosemary
Mental Magazine uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care....it's for everyone."

Dear Rambo

Thanks for putting in your comment on the discussion about Families.  You
are the first person on my board (mentalmagazine) to react to any of the
postings.

What you say about it being easier for someone in a wheelchair to get help
is not really so.  My brother has been in a wheelchair for 13 years after
jumping out of a hostel window in 1987, as well as being treated for
schizophrenia for over 30 years.  When he became disabled I was surprised to
see how similar the problems are with the mental illness care.  It's
certainly easier to fight ON BEHALF of someone who is physically disabled -
though not easy - and if it's a disability like my brother's which is that
he is completely paralysed from the waist down.  (If he had some mobility
that would make it much more difficult.)
A lot of the problem, I think, stems from political correctness about
"labelling" which backfires onto the patient.  My late mother who was
partially disabled with an arthritic hip, wrote a poem about the DSS and the
mounds of paper it took to get any of the benefits and that it was essential
to have a label before the authorities would do anything - at one point she
says "nothing will happen until I'm labelled."

And getting back to the families issue, which this discussion started with -
there is just as much political correctness in the disabled world as there
is with mental illness
.
I'd just like to mention here that my brother has coped fantastically well
with being partially paralysed.  He just gets on and makes the most of his
life. The awful thing is that if he hadn't become paralysed I wouldn't have
been able to do as much for him - simply because the paralysis can't be
argued with.  But if I hadn't been there to fight for him and look after
him, I'm sure he would be dead now.  The care is definitely NOT there for
the physically disabled and if you have and mental and physical condition
combined, forget it.

As you know, on my website I quote the passage from Joseph Heller's Catch-22
about not being mad if you say you're mad - and that's the real problem, I
think, for mental patients.  If you're in enough control to ask for help,
it's assumed you are COMPLETELY in control of yourself and don't need help.

  You say, Rambo, that you USED to use the labelling theory and ideas about
the social creation of mental illness but then you didn't get help - but do
you get the help you want now?

Best wishes.
Rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"It's for everyone"

----- Original Message -----
From: <ramboghettouk@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 4:04 PM
Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [disability-awareness] Families
I used to use the labelling theory and ideas about the social
creation of mental ilness but found social workers would claim i was
saying i wasn't ill and refuse help, now i've learnt the lesson, it's
funny they don't say that to people in wheelvhairs arguing the social
model, they can argue it and get help


----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Scullion <hsx168@c...>
To: <disability-awareness@y...>; Magnus Linklater
magnus.linklater@v...>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [disability-awareness] Families
Thanks Rosemary
No wish to go back to the non-disabled my nerves theme at all but
i have wondered if social model and disability activists has been
segragtionist.  Tending to assume disabled people are not part of
families.
Philip

--- In mentalmagazine@y..., "Rosemary Moore" <rosemary.moore@v...>
wrote:
> Thank YOU Philip!
>
> In a nutshell.
>
> Rosemary
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Philip Scullion <hsx168@c...>
> To: <disability-awareness@y...>; Magnus Linklater
> <magnus.linklater@v...>
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [disability-awareness] Families
>
>
> > Thanks Rosemary
> >
> > No wish to go back to the non-disabled my nerves theme at all but
i
> > have wondered if social model and disability activists has been
> > segragtionist.  Tending to assume disabled people are not part of
> > families.
> >
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >I used to use the labelling theory and ideas about the social
creation of mental ilness but found social workers would claim i was
saying i wasn't ill and refuse help, now i've learnt the lesson, it's
funny they don't say that to people in wheelvhairs arguing the social
model, they can argue it and get help

Thank YOU Philip!

In a nutshell.

Rosemary

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Scullion <hsx168@...>
To: <disability-awareness@yahoogroups.com>; Magnus Linklater
<magnus.linklater@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [disability-awareness] Families


> Thanks Rosemary
>
> No wish to go back to the non-disabled my nerves theme at all but i
> have wondered if social model and disability activists has been
> segragtionist.  Tending to assume disabled people are not part of
> families.
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Scullion <hsx168@...>
To: <disability-awareness@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 8:34 AM
Subject: [disability-awareness] Disabled Familiy
  Thats an interesting notion Rachael mentioned, the whole family
> being disabled....
> I must ponder a bit on that
> Philip Scullion,  Senior Lecturer, School of Health and Social Sciences
> Coventry University, Gulson Campus, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FP
> E-Mail P.Scullion@...
> Tel 024 7688 7969 Direct, Tel 024 7688 7928 Reception, FAX 024 7688 7910


Good to see the discussion on the Disability-Awareness board moving towards
an acknowledgement that a person with any sort of disability or infirmity is
living within a community of family and friends and acquaintances.  They
aren't separate.

That all got lost in the recent discussion on the Disability-Awareness
board, about David Hancock, the 52-year old man suffering from cerebral
palsy who last December wheeled his chair into the river and drowned
himself.  He had given up.  He was worried
because his mother was getting older and wouldn't be able to look after him.
And how must his mother now feel?

Debbie brought this Bristol newspaper report to the attention of the DAA
group:

"A disabled man drowned himself because he was depressed about his future,
an inquest heard.
The body of David Hancock, aged 52, was found in Bristol docks three days
after he went missing.
Bristol Coroners Court was told Mr Hancock, who had severe cerebral palsy
and used an electric wheelchair, was worried about his future because of his
mother's deteriorating health. He was also unhappy that his care worker had
been changed.
Mr Hancock, of St John's Lane, Bedminster, disappeared on December 8.
In a statement read out in court Mr Hancock's mother Winifred said: " He was
a very intelligent man who was well aware of what was going on. In the last
few months David worried about my health, and was also worrying about his
own future. David made no indication that he was contemplating taking his
own life."
Police divers searched the docks near the Arnolfini after they were told Mr
Hancock had wheeled himself into the water there on a previous occasion two
years earlier, but had been rescued. Mr Hancock's body was found in the
water on December 11 near to the spot where he had been saved.
Bristol coroner Paul Forest recorded a verdict that Mr Hancock had taken his
own life."

I've used Philip Scullion's comment on this topic (see beginning of this
message) because what he says indicates that the community around a person
with a disability is simply not
in the picture.  But it is starting to be.

Within the National Schizophrenia Fellowship - one of the UKs major mental
health charities - the issue of how siblings in a family cope with illness
has been addressed, not by charity itself, but by an individual.  A woman
whose brother has been ill for some years.

This is part of what Sylvia, a German woman who has lived in this country
for ten
years, wrote in the February 2001 nsf Newsletter for nsf members living in
London, East and South-East England:

"My name is Sylvia and I have an older brother with schizophrenia.  I always
knew his illness had affected me, but I never knew how deeply it had, and
still does influence me.
I wasn't aware of it until I read a book by Julie Johnson called Hidden
Victims, Hidden Healers.  There it was all spilled out - the loneliness, the
hope - and helplessness, the shame, the guilt, the fear, the anger.  As well
how the family tries to cope, and very often not knowing any better adopts
maladaptive coping strategies.  Siblings and children very often try to
compensate by being the good and happy child that has no problems, taking on
too many responsibilities for which they are actually too young, becoming
escape artists or care takers, they often haven't learned that they too are
allowed to have needs and rights.  Often they have lost the ability to
trust, suffering from low self esteem, an excessive need to control and
perfectionism.  Very often they dissociate or numb their feelings, and worry
how likely are they (or their children) to become ill with schizophrenia,
and how they will cope when their parents can no longer look after the ill
sibling.
Reading this book made me see and understand so many things: that how I
learned to cope and react to my brother's illness, is what I still practice
nowadays when it is inappropriate.  There is an 8 stage healing programme in
the book which I would love to put into practice.  For example, the 1st
stage consists of just acknowledging that a family member has schizophrenia,
and how it makes us feel.....I think it would be very beneficial for me and
other siblings and children of the mentally ill to form a self help group
where we can deal with what has and is still happening to us...."

A meeting did take place in the nsf offices at King's Cross on Sunday, 4
March.  I was one of the dozen or so people there and we are going to work
through the 8 stages described in Julie Johnson's book.

Whatever the disability and whatever their circumstances, I believe the same
factors apply - the person with the disabilility can only have a reasonable
and happy life if they are truly integrated into their community (family).
Sylvia's initiative is, of course, focussed on the families of those
suffering from Schizophrenia but the principles apply to all disabilities.

I am a "sibling" myself, looking after my brother and sister, but I have
also looked after our mother and father.  And, like me, some of the other
people there on Sunday were multi-carers.  So the problems of being a
sibling of a disabled person are only one part of the picture. The main
issue, for me, is - what we do we to make sure the person receives all the
help and encouragement they need from the state, and how do we see that the
family environment/community is taken into account - that the person is not
dealt with in isolation?  My answer is that we should be the supporters and
advocates and friends of the patient, NOT the "carer".

I'm  also copying this message to Magnus Linklater whose article about his
son, Archie, who suffers from manic-depression appeared in the Observer on
Sunday 25 February.  You can read this article "A Tale of Ordinary Madness"
subtitled "If you'd spent 15 years watching your son battle manic depression
while state provision for the mentally ill has gone from poor to scandalous,
you'd be made too."  on the net at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4141697,00.html
Mr Linklater article in the Observer follows one published in The Times in
December 2000, after a visit to his son in hospital.  He says "I thought
long and hard before writing...I did not want to prejudice my son's position
or his future welfare...What I had not anticipated was the huge and
passionate response from readers.  They told of stories of isolation and
abandonment, of a failure to find help when it was needed most, of
indifference, neglect and insensitivity." The article includes photographs
of Archie Linklater with his father and he Magnus says: "It is a tribute to
him and the strength of his character that he has emerged from this history
of medical battering with his warmth, charm and independence intact.  We are
immensely proud of him."

Magnus Linklater's Observer article - although available on the net - has
barely been noticed by any of the discussion boards.   But his attitude is,
I think, the way forward.  Families must stop being ashamed and cowed and
fight for better care, alongside those needing it.

Rosemary

----- Original Message -----
From: Don Roberts Jr
To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: [criticalpsychiatry] Fw: [psychiatry-research] One in five
psychiatrists assaulted


I'd _love_ to hear the consumers' accounts of these attacks. Wonder what the
shrinks did to provoke the attacks?

Don R


Dear Don

Janet Cresswell was sent to Broadmoor in 1976, having jabbed a psychiatrist
in the bottom.    Her intention was to get him into court to challenge his
assertion that she needed medication for mental illness.  She was charged
with attempted murder and psychiatric reports stated she was suffering from
paranoid schizophrenia.  I contacted Janet last May and since then have been
trying to obtain evidence from the authorities of her alleged mental
illness.  None has been provided.

Last September I sent a message about Janet to five mental health discussion
boards, including critical psychiatry.  No-one on this board replied but I
get a very angry response from the nursing board which read the message as a
direct criticism of nurses.

My original message and the response from the nursing board is the first
message I have put on my discussion board
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine)

I have also published a letter written for the Net by Janet and an update.
You can also read an article she wrote for the Sunday Times "A Day in the
Life of..." in 1987 on the website www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.

(See below this message for details of the story Don is referring to.)

Rosemary

----- Original Message -----
From: Don Roberts Jr
To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: [criticalpsychiatry] Fw: [psychiatry-research] One in five
psychiatrists assaulted


I'd _love_ to hear the consumers' accounts of these attacks. Wonder what the
shrinks did to provoke the attacks?

Don R.
-----Original Message-----
From: DBDouble [mailto:dbdouble@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:37 AM
To: Critical Psychiatry
Subject: [criticalpsychiatry] Fw: [psychiatry-research] One in five
psychiatrists assaulted


Does violence breed violence?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Pitchford" <ian.pitchford@...>
To: <psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 17:17
Subject: [psychiatry-research] One in five psychiatrists assaulted


> BBC NEWS ONLINE
> Monday, 5 March, 2001, 11:45 GMT
> One in five psychiatrists assaulted
>
> Nearly 20% of psychiatrists have been assaulted by patients in the past
year, a
> survey suggests.
>
> The study, carried out in south Wales, asked 139 psychiatrists about their
> experiences of violence from patients.
>
> Dr Stephen Davies, who authored the study, found that 17% said they had
been
> attacked at least once in the past year.
>
> But he said: "The Health and Safety at Work Act places a responsibility on
> employers to identify and address hazards.
>
> Full text:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1202000/1202892.stm
>
>
>
>
> Read The Human Nature Daily Review every day
> http://human-nature.com/nibbs/
> To subscribe/unsubscribe/select DIGEST go to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychiatry-research
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Click for Details


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

What is all this fuss about compulsory treatment?  The majority of patients
are SEEKING treatment either in hospital or in the community.  UK
legislation gives a person who has been assessed as needing treatment,
entitlement to that treatment whether in the community or hospital.  The
Community Care Act 1990 (as well as previous and subsequent pieces of
legislation) gives patients the right to a decent standard of care in the
community, and the 1983 Mental Health Act includes those same rights for
patients in hospital or outpatients.

If you don't have a copy of the 1983 Mental Health Act - Mark Walton (one of
the moderators of the mentalhealthlaw Yahoo!group) has this - and loads of
everything else on mental health law - at www.markwalton.net

For Section 131 you have to click on Part X Miscellaneous and Supplementary.
And there it is  - the section entitling voluntary patients treatment in
hospital:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing a patient who requires
treatment for mental disorder from being admitted to any hospital or mental
nursing home in pursuance of arrangements made in that behalf and without
any application, order, or direction rendering him liable to be detained
under this Act, or from remaining in any hospital or mental nursing home in
pursuance of such arrangements after he has ceased to be so liable to be
detained."

Section 127 gives protection against ill-treatment of patients:
"It shall be an offence for any person who is an officer on the staff of or
otherwise employed in, or who is one of the managers of, a hospital or
mental nursing home -
(a) to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect a patient for the time being
receiving treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in that hospital or
home; or
(b) to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect, on the premises of which the
hospital or home forms a part, a patient for the time being receiving such
treatment there as an out-patient."

In my message on 25 February I drew attention to the fact that there has
been no discussion of the CURRENT mental health legislation, despite the
fact that the Department of Health commissioned and published research into
the MHA83.  I have a copy of the summary of that research sent to me on
request and this is in a folder in the Files of my Yahoo!group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine).  I attached a copy of that
research together with the Mental Health Alliance briefing for MPs on the
White Paper, with my message on 25 February.  The Alliance briefing can also
be found on the Mind website.
I don't think the summary of the DoH research is available elsewhere on the
Net but the full report (223 pages) is available on
http://www.doh.gov.uk/mhar/mhalitrev.htm

The messages at the bottom of this one have gone to the mentalhealthlaw and
criticalpsychiatry boards.   It appears to have been overlooked that the
reason the Government is (apparently) so set on the proposals in the White
Paper is that it has been led to believe that there isn't any alternative.

If Professor William Bingley (ex-Mind Legal Director/ex-CE of Mental Health
Act Commission) can make this statement unchallenged to the Health Select
Committee during its enquiry into NHS mental health services last year - it
shows how much anyone knows or cares about what is really in the 1983 Mental
Health Act:
"...the proposals for the community treatment order...not stunningly
different from the community powers in the current Act, guardianship and
supervised discharge..."

The Mental Health Alliance - does anybody know (or care) what this is? - is
preventing any discussion of the current powers and, it appears to me, is
simply in the business of creating jobs for "advocates", when the current
Act provides that already in the form of Guardianship.

Rosemary

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Bartlett
To: mentalhealthlaw@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 16:29
Subject: Re: [mentalhealthlaw] MH law basics

If you approve of the content of the White Paper, skip this message.  It is
written in response to John's and Tim's messages, where the former seems to
think the White Paper proposals are set in stone.

I appreciate the Labour Party is getting stubborn and pig-headed about
listening to people on this sort of thing, but I think there are enough
holes and fudges in the White Paper that the game is not yet up (at least, I
certainly *hope* the game is not yet up!).  I think the White Paper is an
electioneering document, and will have to be re-visited to some extent at
least after the election.  If we seriously believe the proposals are flawed
(and I for one do), I think there is some chance of seeing things changed,
at least to some degree.

I suspect that the first issue on that will be hammering your candidates on
the stump.  Anyone with Lib Dem connections is encouraged to play them up
now, since it seems unlikely that the Tories will make this an issue in any
way we like. And we should also hammer Labour candidates, since backbench
pressure could be very helpful in getting the government to move.

peter

>>> JMyers4544@... 03/04/01 13:01 PM >>>
In a message dated 03/03/01 18:45:03 GMT Standard Time, micoxx@...
writes:


> I am
> convinced that criteria for involuntary placement, help care and treatment
> should be strictly confined to mental incapacity to make informed,
> undistorted decisions and choices

I agree with Mike quite strongly. However I thought the argument had been
lost at least as far as the impending new Mental Health Act is concerned? I
had assumed that this argument would need to be advanced in the future. Any
body think it is still not too late for this time round?

Mike's argument about adequacy of general mentalhealth services is also very
important. The least restrictive alternative is fine in principle, but does
not mean much without the reciprocity principle advocated in the Richardson
Report. I have wondered whether it would be worth trying to get a clause in
the new Act which effectively provides the possibility of compensation to
anyone who is subjected to detention (compulsion?) because services that
should be available were not available or were not made available. A duty
could be placed on the Tribunal to determine whether this is the case at the
time they make the order?
John

Dear Melissa - in response to my comments about your replies to the
questions posed you by members of the criticalpsychiatry board re
Scientology & CCHR, you asked:

"Thanks for your response, Rosemary.  What is the mentalmagazine board?  It
sounds interesting.   Melissa"

The mentalmagazine discussion board is another Yahoo! group (like this one)
and is part of my website Mental Magazine uk.  You can find the website at
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk and go to the discussion board from the main site
or go directly to the discussion board Home Page at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/  The idea is for the
discussion group to interact with the website - and to use the discussion
board as a "communal website".  This is explained in a message on the board.

What I'm trying to do with Mental Magazine uk is to get people out of their
mind ghettos - look at things from different perspectives and respect those
differences and as a result refine a personal point of view.  Your postings
about Scientology and on the other topics on criticalpsychiatry seem to me
to be doing just that.

One of the people I talk about on Mental Magazine uk is NOAM CHOMSKY and I
publish a quote on what he says about authority (power):

"Any form of authority requires justification; it's not self justified."

That, I think, applies to each and every one of us - just having a position,
a point of view, or belonging to a group, organisation or party does NOT
mean someone can "lay down the law".

Best wishes.
Rosemary


----- Original Message -----
From: Guitarlady765@...
To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Scientology


In a message dated 3/3/01 8:34:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rosemary.moore@... writes:

Dear Melissa

Thanks for these clear explanations to the questions you have been posed on
Scientology and CCHR (Citizens Commission on Human Rights)  - which you
posted to the criticalpsychiatry board today. The Kevin Owen who is referred
to in these comments is now a member of my discussion board
(mentalmagazine).




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Click here for Classmates.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Dear Melissa

Thanks for these clear explanations to the questions you have been posed on
Scientology and CCHR (Citizens Commission on Human Rights)  - which you
posted to the criticalpsychiatry board today. The Kevin Owen who is referred
to in these comments is now a member of my discussion board
(mentalmagazine).  I assume he is still a member of criticalpsychiatry.

I'm copying this message to the mentalmagazine board and to John Wood (one
of the people promoting the London Scientology exhibition) who contacted me
some years ago about CCHR and with whom I have kept in touch.

I particularly like your comments which apply to us all, such as:

"I call the Internet the "great equalizer" in that everybody with a computer
and modem has an equal opportunity to communicate and persuade."

and

"It's ludicrous to assume that Scientologists agree amongst ourselves, less
that we're going to get everyone else to agree with us.   You can look at
the Scientologists that
have posted here as a microcosm.  It seems to me that we all have pretty
different "messages" and pretty different ways of "promoting" them, wouldn't
you say?"


Best wishes.
Rosemary


----- Original Message -----
From: Guitarlady765@...
To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Scientology


In a message dated 2/26/01 2:47:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
DuncanM@... writes:


Melissa, you make a valid point when you say that criticising something
without having made much effort to explore it better is a cheap shot.  Fair
comment.

But ... I would still appreciate your help with a query that someone posted
to the list a while ago, about the message (copied below) that sparked this
whole "conspiracy theory" thing.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer these questions.  If
someone posted this earlier, I didn't see it.  I don't know how well I'll be
able to explain most of this, because it frankly doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to me. It's the individual's opinion, not Scientology, and I most
assuredly don't agree with the implications.  But I can define some of the
concepts at least, so here goes.



Could you please tell me, with regard to this message and Scientology
jargon:
What does "illegal PC" mean?

One of the services we provide is one-on-one spiritual counseling that
addresses specific traumas and other issues in people's lives. Per policy,
we
don't offer this counseling to some people because we can't predict the
results.  Unlike psychiatry, we don't take people's money and pretend to
help
them when we're not sure we can. In fact, we have made it "illegal" to do so
(I personally think this should be how psychiatry operates too but I'm not
holding my breath).  We don't offer this counseling to people who have
received ECT or have a heavy history of psychiatric drugs; there are other
catagories as well, but not so relevent here. This is because the ability to
successfully complete the counseling is often affected.  There are memory
problems, for one thing.  There are nonetheless people who benefit from the
counseling in spite of having received damaging treatment, so this policy is
not completely rote, and we also provide many other services besides
counseling where this catagory doesn't exist.  Interestingly, people who
administer these treatments don't do well with our counseling either, so
it's
also against our policy to provide it to them.

The question might be asked, is the Church against psychiatry because we
can't deliver some of our services to people who have had extensive
psychiatric treatment?  No, we were fighting psychiatric abuse years before
this policy ever existed, since the inception of Scientology. While doing
early research into the mind, Hubbard found it interesting that often people
who had received certain psychiatric treatment didn't respond to counseling
in the same way as others.  When he looked into why he discovered the
damaging effects. Nowdays, you can see the brain damage from these
treatments
with brain imaging.  We absolutely believe that people should be given the
opportunity to understand that they risk being damaged before they're given
these treatments.

When we looked deeper into psychiatric treatment, the Church found a panoply
of house-of-horrors activities in psychiatric wards, like rape, assault,
mayhem, manslaughter and murder, along with severe abuses of involuntary
commitment laws.  Thus, CCHR was born, an organization that would handle
just
that and nothing else.  By the way, most people working for CCHR are
volunteers. They're usually either psychiatric survivors themselves, or know
someone that is and that's why we do what we do.

An historical footnote: Hubbard was the first to publicly expose
intelligience/psychiatric mind-control experiments on unsuspecting civilians
(later revealed as MKULTRA).  He discovered victims of this while counseling
people in Washington DC.  He first wrote about these victims in his book
"Science of Survival" published in 1951.


What does "not qualified for Scientology" mean?



I don't know what this means, because it isn't true.  Anybody is "qualified"
for Scientology who's honestly interested.  The definition of a
Scientologist
is someone who studies and uses Scientology.  There are plenty of people who
study and use it on their own for the most part who are not near a Church;
we
actively encourage that.  What the person could mean by this is that most
people in this group are not likely to be interested in Scientology, which
may be true.  Whatever was meant by it, I strongly disagree with the way it
was stated because it's very confusing and misleading.


What does "promoting" mean?

Promoting means "to get something known about."  The poster was referring to
the "What is Scientology?" exhibit that I believe is in England right now.
The purpose of this exhibit is to provide accurate information about
Scientology in a neutral setting.  If someone doesn't want to come to Church
to find out about it, they can go to the exhibit, ask questions, see what
it's about in a museum-type setting.  I don't know why the person was
promoting the exhibit on this list.  It's off topic if nothing else.  But on
the other hand, he's free to promote wherever he wants, and anyone on this
list that wants to see the exhibit is invited.

What does "MI" in the signature mean?

This is short for "much love".  It's a way to sign off the name, like "yours
truly" or "love".

What does "getting Kevin handled" mean in this context (I haven't heard from
him in a while)?

I've answered this already at length, but I'll try again.  I would take
being
"handled" to mean being shown information or a reference.  That's my
definition of it, and this is what the Church emphasizes.  We believe that
consulting a person's understanding about things is the superior approach.
We do this with values, ethics, everything.  Our definition of ethics is
"reason", for instance.  Superior ability to reason will bring a superior
ethics level.   A high ethical state is both highly analytical and optimum
survival.  So the more you increase someone's ability to think for
themselves
and be analytical, the more you increase his ability to survive.  Anybody
that's going to be "handled" by the Church of Scientology is going to be
handled in that direction.

In Kevin's case, I saw at least one post from him that had incorrect
information about Scientology in it.  For instance, he said something about
Scientology having no "God."   This may be true for him, but it isn't the
Church's viewpoint.  Scientology is perhaps unique as a religion in that you
don't have to have faith or blindly believe in doctrine to be a member.  At
every Sunday service, the following quote is read: "What is true for you is
what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you've lost
everything....Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless
you
have observed it and it is true according to your observation.."  Thus Kevin
himself is free to continue to believe there is no God, but that's not what
our literature says.  Because there is already so much misinformation and
misunderstanding about Scientology out there, a lot of Scientologists feel
it's pretty important to be accurate about what it really is when making
public statements.   They, like me, are sick of hearing weird ideas about it
from people who don't know what they're talking about.   So some of us have
a
group standard of demanding accuracy from each other.  Nobody's perfect in
that regard, and people can also have different viewpoints on what
Scientology is, especially when the above reference, about being "true for
you," is the standard.  But there are some things about it that are pretty
obvious.

I'd like to point out one other thing.  Everybody does Scientology in their
own way, at their own pace and their own level of interest. Some people are
more Scientologists than others.  In other words, they've studied it more,
they practice it more, they probably understand it better.  Others may just
be dabbling in it, or maybe are doing something else and calling it
Scientology.     That's another reason you can't determine what Scientology
is by the behavior of one or even a few members.  You have to look at the
literature.  I would say that's true of any religion.  We'd like to have all
of our members be steller examples of what this religion represents and can
accomplish.  Since we don't "force" people to practice Scientology, but can
only encourage them to do so, that's not a realistic goal.


Did you join the list before or after Kevin was "handled"?

I'm not sure, Duncan.  This appears to maybe be a loaded question, but I'm
not sure what it's loaded with or why.  Perhaps you could rephrase the
question so I understand what it is you're getting at?


Are you primarily on this list to "promote our (CCHR) messages only"?

In my first post, I told you why I was here.  I mainly started posting
because I didn't agree with what was being said or implied about Scientology
and CCHR and I wanted to try to give a more accurate picture of things.

I'd like to point out that "Promoting our messages only" assumes that
Scientologists agree on what those messages are.  It's ludicrous to assume
that Scientologists agree amongst ourselves, less that we're going to get
everyone else to agree with us.   You can look at the Scientologists that
have posted here as a microcosm.  It seems to me that we all have pretty
different "messages" and pretty different ways of "promoting" them, wouldn't
you say?

Am I here personally to get people to agree with me?  Of course I would like
to find some points of agreement. I think everybody that communicates does
that to some extent.  If anyone that posts here says they don't want to
persuade others of their viewpoints, at least to some extent, I'd say they
weren't being completely honest.   Do I actually think I'm going to get
people to forward my viewpoints only?  Ha, ha, HA!!!!!

I call the Internet the "great equalizer" in that everybody with a computer
and modem has an equal opportunity to communicate and persuade.  Thus,
Duncan, you and I have equal opportunities to convince each other of our
viewpoints.  Fair enough?  If you're still concerned about what I might try
to convince you of, I'd like to encourage you to remember a quote from
Scientology when you read my posts or anybody else's:  "What is true for you
is what you have observed yourself...."  I'd like to also suggest that this
concept might be wonderful therapy for one's patients, in other words,
allowing what's true for them to be what they've observed for themselves,
not
what other people, including the therapist, have asserted or enforced on
them....

Is giving my viewpoints the only reason I'm here?  As I said before, I
originally signed up mainly to try to clear up misconceptions of CCHR and
Scientology, for those who might be open to having misconceptions cleared
up.
  Since reading the list, I've gotten some valuable ideas and insights from
others, particularly the survivors; I always do from them.  I'm hoping to
read information on the list that's useful to me, and maybe even share
resources in fighting psychiatric abuse, for those interested in that
subject.

Melissa

"That mind that knows itself is the mind of a free man."   L. Ron Hubbard

This request to complete a questionnaire was sent by Anthony Rhodes to the
disability-awareness group last month.

These questions could equally apply to anyone as well as highlighting the
fact that a large section of the disabled/non-disabled community either do
not have or cannot use the technology which could help them. So I am sending
this to mentalmagazine and the Disability Research board.

Please respond privately or on the board as you wish.  It would be useful if
anyone can add questions to the list.

Thank you.
Rosemary
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Rhodes <Anthony-Rhodes@...>
To: Disability-Awareness <disability-awareness@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 6:34 PM
Subject: [disability-awareness] Please could you help me and fill in this
questionnaire


> Please can you help me to make others understand.
>
> Many people do not understand the challenges that those of us with
> disabilities have to overcome to use computer technology. Sometimes it is
> achieved just by strength of character, and where possible, by using
> adaptive or enabling software or equipment to make the computer useable.
I
> am doing research into this area, and would be very grateful if you would
> let me have the benefit of your experience, to help others understand the
> real problems.  If you can answer all or most of the questions below, it
> will be very helpful.  If you find difficulty with completing forms, I
would
> be just as happy with any comments you would like to make on this
subject..
>
> Your opinion counts for a lot, but your identity will be kept private.
>
> Questionnaire. please write your answer in the line below the question.
>
> 1. Please state your age.
>
> 2.
> 3. Please say what disability you have (please put the number code if it
is
> listed in the box below, otherwise just type the name of the condition).
>
>
>
> 4. Are you: male, or female.
>
> 5. Do you use a computer at home, at school or both?
>
> 6. Do you have access to the Internet?  (Reply either yes or no).
>
> 7. Do you like to chat on the Internet? (Yes or no)
>
> 8. If you answered YES to Question 6, please try to explain why.
>
>
> 8. What else do you use the computer for?
>
>
> 9. How much memory do you have in the computer, (size of RAM)?
>
>
> 10. What operating system does your computer have?  - for example Windows
> 3.1, Windows 95, MacOS, DOS.
>
>
> 11. Which web browser do you use (i.e. Internet Explorer 5 or Netscape 6)?
>
>
> 12. What special software do you use to help you overcome your disability?
> (Please list all, if you use different ones, and state what assistance
they
> are meant to give).
>
>
> 13. Do you have any problems with, or criticism of the special software
you
> use?  (Yes or No).
>
>
> 14. If you answered YES to Question 13, please give examples of the
problems
> you have had.
>
>
> 15. .Do you find that using a computer helps you to overcome difficulties
> created by your disability? (Yes or No).
>
>
> 16. If you answered NO to Question 15, please try and explain why.
>
>
> 17. Would you like a career that has something to do with computers? (Yes
or
> No).
>
>
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: disability-awareness@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    disability-awareness-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  disability-awareness-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   disability-awareness-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/disability-awareness
>
>

In response to David Cunard, I have copied the Mental Health Alliance
Briefing on the White Paper at the bottom of this message.  I have NOT
copied the Department of Health document as it runs to 32 hardcopy pages.  I
am sending the DoH document to David separately.

(I should say that my access to the Alliance briefing came by way of an
attachment sent by Duncan Double to the criticalpsychiatry board, for which
I'm very grateful.  This had been sent to him by John Myers of BASW as a
representative of the Alliance.

My access to the DoH document comes via my private correspondence with the
Michael Dewane, the DoH Senior Policy Adviser, Mental Health Legislation
Branch.  Later on I was emailed the research in response to my enquiries
about it.)

Could I have some guidance please as to the best way of disseminating the
DoH document and other such documents in the future?  As I said in earlier
messages, I don't think this document is available on the net apart from in
the Files of my discussion group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine) and you have to join the
group to access the Files.

I believe that David's solution is in fact the best BUT it may not suit
everyone.

These are my views on the technostuff:

Copying documents, where possible, into an email in plain text PROBABLY is
the most acceptable method because:
1.    Once the email is in the inbox, the document can be read offline
and/or filed, printed out.  It's the quickest way of looking at the entire
information.
2.    Attachments can cause problems for various reasons, viruses, being
illegible on some machines.  People may not want to be bothered/havetime to
open a document separately from the email.
3.    Having to go into a url (website address) means having to dial up and
go online. And this also takes up time.

I recommend the Brother HL-1030 Windows Laser Printer which is extremely
efficient for printing out any document and is so cheap it can be used for
multicopies rather than having to photocopy.  Before this, I had a colour
printer (which I still have) but it was terribly expensive.

Rosemary

----- Original Message -----
From: <showbiz@...>
To: <mentalhealthlaw@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:44 AM
Subject: [mentalhealthlaw] Research and the Technomuddle


> >As Ian says, the technomuddle is getting much more attention than mental
> >health issues.
> >
> >What about putting some energy into discussing the law?
> >
> That's all very well - but  HTML versions of the files involved were
> received and are virtually incomprehensible - I suggest that files simply
> be copied as *text* and then included in the body of a letter, that way no
> one would have any problems in reading the material. It doesn't take more
> than a couple of seconds to make a copy select "All",then select "Copy"
and
> paste into the e-mail. Proper communication is of paramount importance, so
> firt things first! The inclusion of URLs may be helpful to some, but some
> e-mail is received without a net browser in use, which means that it then
> has to be loaded, the URL copied to it etc., etc. So - TEXT please!
>
> David Cunard


DRAFT
The White Paper - Reforming the Mental Health Act
A briefing from the Mental Health Alliance

The Mental Health Alliance is a consortium of over 50 service user,
professional, service provider, trade union and voluntary organisations set
up in January 2000 to provide a focus for campaigning on common concerns
about reform of the Mental Health Act .  Members of the Alliance share the
following views on reform of the Act:
· The aim of the new legislation should be to reduce the need for using
compulsory powers.
· The new legislation should offer people an individual enforceable right to
a comprehensive assessment of their needs; and to have their identified
needs met with appropriate and good quality services.
· A free independent advocate should be made available to everyone at all
times, from the point of assessment; and the Government should provide
adequate resources for this on a national basis.
· The current law takes insufficient account of people's capacity to make
their own treatment decisions and leaves those deemed to lack capacity
without proper protection.  New legislation must address both these issues
in conjunction with wider incapacity legislation.  Incapacity must not be
equated with disagreeing with your doctor and must be sensitive to cultural
differences.
· People with mental health problems should have the right to draw up
advance statements  on their care and those they want involved in such care.
Such statements should be legally enforceable such that a person who has
lost capacity (whether detained or not) has the same rights as someone who
has retained capacity.
· There should be a duty for full information to be provided on any proposed
treatment and for informed consent to be sought in every case.  Special
safeguards should continue to apply to psychosurgery, ECT and long-term drug
treatment and should be extended to  polypharmacy , prescribing above BNF
levels2 and force feeding.  Where treatment is given without consent it
should be subject to independent review including a second medical opinion
and involving consultation with patients and their representatives.
· We support the formation of new independent tribunals as long as they
reflect the community they serve, comprise a breadth of experience
(including that of service users) and receive appropriate training.   There
should be an independent appeals procedure against the Tribunal's initial
decision.

The purpose of this briefing is to highlight for MPs and Peers whether the
proposals set out in the White Paper meet these concerns.

Concern 1: The aim of the new legislation should be to reduce the need for
compulsory powers.

The Alliance agrees with the Government that good quality care and treatment
is the key to making sure that most people with mental health problems will
never need to fall within the scope of mental health legislation. We also
endorse the Government's aim to reduce the numbers of people subject to
compulsion. However, we are concerned that the proposals in the White Paper
will in practice increase the numbers subject to compulsion because of:
· The breadth of the proposed criteria for compulsion.
· The failure to provide crucial rights, such as the right to have assessed
needs met with appropriate and good quality services (see concern 2 below).
· The potentially wide interpretation of the concept of best interests.
·  The use of the Act to manage behaviour regardless of therapeutic benefit.
·  The increased role of health professionals at the expense of those with
knowledge of community and social networks.

Concern 2:  Right to a comprehensive assessment of needs

The White Paper states that all patients treated under formal powers will be
given a full assessment of their health and social care needs. However, such
an assessment will only take place if it has been decided that compulsory
powers should be used. It will not, therefore, address the problem
highlighted by a survey carried out by the National Schizophrenia
Fellowship, Better Act Now! (1999), that one in three people with severe
mental illness are turned away from help at some point.

A failure to provide early access to a comprehensive assessment and
appropriate and quality services can lead to the use of compulsion at a
later date.  Thus the Alliance believes that the new mental health
legislation must place a duty on health and social care agencies to provide
a comprehensive assessment of a person's needs when such an assessment is
requested or it appears that the person has mental health needs. Given that
the right to an assessment will be of little value if no services are
provided to meet identified needs, individuals should also have the right to
receive the appropriate treatment, care and/or support to meet their
assessed needs.  Without a statutory duty it seems unlikely that the
resources necessary to provide comprehensive services throughout England and
Wales will be made available.

Concern 3: The Right to Advocacy

The Alliance welcomes the Government's proposal to introduce a right of
access to independent specialist advocacy. In order to ensure that
individuals can benefit from such a service there must be:
· Free and open direct access to the service.
· Wide publicising of the service in a way which is accessible to all groups
including those with communication and learning disabilities and those whose
first language is not English.
· Access to the service as soon as the use of compulsion is being considered
rather than after it has been imposed.
· A continued right of access for as long as services are provided.
· Sufficient resources to ensure provision of the necessary services across
England and Wales as well as proper training and support.

Concern 4:  Capacity and incapacity

We are concerned that the proposed framework appears to take no account of
people's capacity to take their own health care decisions.

The Alliance welcomes the proposals regarding people with long-term
incapacity who need care and treatment for their mental health problems.
There are currently no safeguards for this vulnerable group of people.  We
believe that these safeguards  and the wider incapacity legislation outlined
in Making Decisions (proposals for making decisions on behalf of mentally
incapacitated adults) should be introduced as a matter of urgency.

Concern 5:  Advance Statements

The Alliance would like to see stronger proposals in this area.  We believe
that people with mental health problems should have the right to draw up
legally enforceable advance statements  on their care and those they want
involved in such care and to agree such statements with the clinical team
where possible.  We welcome the expectation that clinical teams will help
patients with this task.  The clinical team must be required to follow such
statements unless there are compelling reasons for acting otherwise which
must be recorded in writing.

We are astounded that the Government has not carried through its intention
of allowing all patients to nominate a person to be involved in decisions
about their care and treatment.  We think that it is entirely inappropriate
and possibly a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention to weaken this
safeguard by taking the power of nomination out of patients' control.

Concern 6:  Treatment for mental disorder

The Alliance welcomes the White Paper's emphasis on the need for better
information for patients and their carers and endorses the proposals to
introduce measures to ensure that patients and their carers get the
information and the support they need when they need it. Given the
importance of consent to treatment, such measures should include a specific
duty for full information to be given on any proposed treatment and for the
individual's informed consent to be sought in every case.

We welcome the proposals to provide special safeguards for certain
treatments.  However we are concerned that there are not to be stronger
safeguards in relation to ECT.  In addition, given the intrusive and/or
potentially harmful effects of force feeding,  polypharmacy and prescribing
above British National Formulary (BNF) levels , we consider that the
administration of such treatments should also be subject to statutory
safeguards rather than, as the Government suggest, merely guidance in the
Code of Practice.

Concern 7:  The New Mental Health Tribunal

The Alliance supports the formation of new independent tribunals. However,
we are disappointed that the White Paper does not expressly identify either
members of black and minority ethnic communities or service users as
potential tribunal members and provides no detail on how the members will be
appointed.  It is essential that black and minority ethnic communities are
fully represented on the panels.

Additional Concerns

The Alliance also has concerns about the following further aspects of the
White Paper.
High Risk Patients
Whilst recognising the Government's concern about public protection we
continue to have doubts about the need for such sweeping powers as are
proposed.  We are concerned:
(a)  At the threshold of risk which will enable people not before the courts
for offences to be detained.  We share the view of the Home Affairs
Committee that the relevant test should
be virtual certainty that they will commit a very serious criminal offence
rather than evidence of a significant risk of serious harm.
(b) That new powers are being proposed to cover people with a personality
disorder before there is an adequate evidence base.  No powers should be
introduced until the existing pilots have been fully evaluated.
(c) That these powers will impact disproportionately on oppressed people and
reinforce the discrimination which already exists in the mental health
system.
Mentally Disordered Offenders
We see no reason for allowing an assessment and treatment power for
offenders before the courts lasting as long as 12 months.  The power should
be limited to a maximum of 4 months.

Article 5 of the European Convention will clearly require the Home Secretary
to have objective medical evidence before referring prisoners for assessment
although this is not listed in the paper as a requirement.  We also believe
that there should be a right to apply to a court or Tribunal to challenge
such a referral.
Disclosure of Information
We recognise the importance of appropriate information being available to
the relevant agencies balanced by an individual's right to privacy.  We are
concerned that there must be sufficient safeguards to ensure that
information is accurate and a procedure for correcting inaccuracies.
Commission for Mental Health
We welcome the Government's recognition of the need for effective monitoring
of the working of a future Act.  Where responsibilities for inspection are
to be taken over by generic bodies such as the Commission for Health
Improvement it will be essential to ensure that the relevant expertise is
developed within those bodies.

> >

Thanks, Andrew.

It is a problem to decide what to do about attachments.  This is solved by
some lists not accepting attachments at all, and then one can offer to
send them separately, or as you say, refer them to the Files attached to the
discussion group website or give urls.

I haven't advertised my own list (mentalmagazine) yet on most of the sites
but when I do I intend to make some general comments, and it would be a help
if we could establish some rules for these Yahoo! lists that will work for
everybody.  As a veteran listrunner yourself (forensic psychiatry) I'd
appreciate it if you would help me with
this offlist.

Can I explain why I attached these documents, even though they are in the
Files of my discussion group.

1.    To my knowledge, The DoH document isn't available on the web EXCEPT in
the Files of my discussion group and you have to be a member of that group
to get into the Files.
2.    Even if I gave urls some people who are on these lists can only
receive email.  However, here is the url for the Mental Health Alliance
document which is on the Mind site
http://www.mind.org.uk/take_action/MHA_White_Paper_briefing.htm. (My copy is
one that came through the critical psychiatry list so I forgot about the
Mind site.)
3.    I wanted to make it easy for people to see these documents!  After
all, they've been around for some time and haven't been discussed.

Strangely I was inspired to send my message because of a long discussion
about technostuff, and we've gone back to that!

Still - I'm sure we can deal with BOTH.  But the most important issue is the
law, and I do hope people are going to be making some comments on that.

Thanks again.
Rosemary


----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew McGleish <amcgleish@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>; <mentalhealthlaw@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:56 PM
Subject: [mentalhealthlaw] Re: [mentalmagazine] Research into current Mental
Health Act


> Rosemary
> Rosemary I've just downloaded two copies of  your email from two
> different lists. With two copies of the attachments it took a while.
> Personally, I would think it better if you could just include the
> relevant URLs and let me and others decide whether we want to download
> them ourselves.
>
>  This is the usual way that things are done on mailing lists, not just
> because they take so long to download but also some systems have
> limits on the size of files which will be accepted (50kb I think) Web
> based mail accounts also usually have limits on mailbox size. One your
> mailbox is full theys top accepting any other mail.
>
> I think the files section of your web site would be a great place for
> the documents if they don't already exist on another web site.
>
> Cheers
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Rosemary
Rosemary I've just downloaded two copies of  your email from two
different lists. With two copies of the attachments it took a while.
Personally, I would think it better if you could just include the
relevant URLs and let me and others decide whether we want to download
them ourselves.

  This is the usual way that things are done on mailing lists, not just
because they take so long to download but also some systems have
limits on the size of files which will be accepted (50kb I think) Web
based mail accounts also usually have limits on mailbox size. One your
mailbox is full theys top accepting any other mail.

I think the files section of your web site would be a great place for
the documents if they don't already exist on another web site.

Cheers
Andrew

----- Original Message -----

From: Ian Blackie

To: mentalhealthlaw@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 3:46 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalhealthlaw] your network mail

Well this has caused far more discussion than any mental health issue

ian

 

Dear Jonathan -

     In this message you say:

     "I think there are many strengths in the UK system which are
      rather taken for granted on the UK side."

     What would you say these are?

     (Magnus Linklater is not a "former journalist".  The article states that
he is "presently a columnist for the Times and Scotland on Sunday".)

     Rosemary

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Mason <jm_1951@...>
To: <PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Link to The Observer article on Mental Health


> Long article in today's 'The Observer' in which the
> author, a former journalist and parent of a son with
> bipolar disorder is very critical of mental health
> care in the UK, but complimentary about the individual
> doctors and nurses involved in care delivery.
>
> Some aspects of ward life in the UK are compared
> unfavorably with the US--however this may be a case of
> the grass being greener on the other side of the pond.
>
> Having work in health services on both sides, I think
> there are many strengths in the UK system which are
> rather taken for granted on the UK side.
>
> http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,442489,00.html
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe send the message 'leave psychiatric-nursing'
> to jiscmail@...
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Pitchford <ian.pitchford@...>
To: <psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 9:34 AM
Subject: [psychiatry-research] A tale of ordinary madness


> THE OBSERVER
> A tale of ordinary madness
> If you'd spent 15 years watching your son battle manic depression while
state
> provision for the mentally ill has gone from poor to scandalous, you'd be
mad
> too
>
> Leader: Act, Mr Milburn
>
> Magnus Linklater
> Observer
>
> Sunday February 25, 2001
>
>
> 'When it's two o'clock in the morning, and you're manic, even the UCLA
Medical
> center has a certain appeal. The hospital - ordinarily a cold clotting of
> uninteresting buildings - became for me, that fall morning not quite 20
years
> ago, a focus of my finely wired, exquisitely alert nervous system. With
> vibrissae twinging, antennae perked, eyes fast-forwarding and fly faceted,
I
> took in everything around me. I was on the run. Not just on the run but
fast
> and furious on the run, darting back and forth across the hospital parking
lot
> trying to use up a boundless, restless, manic energy. I was running fast,
but
> slowly going mad.'
>
> Thus Kay Jamison, psychologist and manic depressive, described a psychotic
> episode in her brilliant book, An Unquiet Mind, subtitled 'A Memoir of
Moods
> and Madness'.
>
> Full text:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4141697,00.html
>
>
>
>
>
> To subscribe/unsubscribe/select DIGEST go to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychiatry-research
> News in Brain and Behavioural Sciences
> http://human-nature.com/nibbs/
> Online Dictionary of Mental Health
> http://www.human-nature.com/odmh/index.html
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Whoops, the icon on the last message doesn't go into Mental Magazine uk as it should. 

This one should work - if it doesn't the url is www.mentalmagazine.co.uk/

WELCOME and thank you for joining this board which is for anyone who wants to see  better health and social care for all. 

Letter from Janet Cresswell in Broadmoor to the Mental Magazine uk discussion board, written January 2001.

Hi,

I’ve been in Broadmoor for nearly a quarter of a century.  If I’d killed a stranger in the street I would have been released years ago & living a normal life which I want to do.   

I attacked a psychiatrist, no other avenue being available, & I did not kill him.

 When Broadmoor, or B’mess as it is commonly known, was founded in 1863, it housed those with sufficient funds to hire lawyers to plead insanity for their capital crimes.  That there was no test for sanity & the insane murderer lived & the sane hanged was never a subject for debate but the situation changed when the death penalty was repealed & there was no further need for psychiatrists to enter the witness box.

 Thus from the 1950’s the role of B’mess became ambivalent & strenuous efforts in the form of media publicity advocating psychiatry brainwashed the general public into believing that such doctors hold the answers to human problems.  Mental health was launched into public awareness & has become a self-generating industry sapping resources which could be used to improve housing and facilities in the community.  The UK now has the highest detained population pro rata in Europe.

 Over the years, B’mess has changed the style of its residents; 25 years ago a third were epileptics deposited through the NHS system; today two thirds are prison transfers.  Doctors’ case loads have dropped from 160 to below 30, sometimes only 12; nurses tripled; admin increased twentyfold; the number of beds has decreased from 1100 to  400.  Health Authorities are charged £120K per annum per bed, whereas the real figure is over £180K per annum.

 Any incidences that occur are regarded excessively & can result in major enquiries, with greater restrictions & rises in the suicide rate which in turn are dealt with punitively.  The Tilt Report – after what would be regarded outside as normal boy/girl activity – recommends that the Sportsfield be closed - yet the chapel is still open after a rape some years ago - & a special unit for women built on it. 

 As there is a staff shortage as expensive Berkshire has the highest employment rate in Europe, this idea is indeed strange but in keeping with the expensive history of B’mess.

 As psychiatrists pleaded too large a case load as reason for failure & the reduction has not produced much better result, it is now suggested that B’mess shall become a sort of transit camp, keeping no-one more than 3 years…..

 Over 15 years the management has ostensibly changed 5 times, starting with DHS & ending with the Fulham Trust.  To date, each changes has necessitated altering the headed paper, moving the filing cabinets to a new address – but the staff have stayed the same. 

 The Select MP’s Committee on Mental Health has advocated closing B’mess, pouring more millions into it is waste of public money.    Whatever happens, the results of past failures need to be addressed & not compounded further.                       JC,

January 2001.

From Len Bowers:

OK Rosemary, that's a fair request, so I'll do my best for you.

 Who is it who 'forces' patient to take 'zombie drugs'? Nurses.

Who took the wordprocessor away? Nurses.

Who keeps her on the ward where she doesn't want to be, and stops her from leaving? Nurses.

Who contributes to the mental health state assessment of every patient via observation and reporting? Nurses.

Who delivers the 'punishment' after the story in the Independent? Nurses.

Who is keeping a woman who is 'not mentally ill' incarcerated in Broadmoor? Nurses.

Who would, apparently, treat her better if only she would admit she was ill? Nurses.

Who delivers and imposes drugs and ECT, who holds the patient down using force? Nurses.

 The actions of nurses are not separate from other disciplines. We work together as a team with them. If you criticise any individual, then you criticise the team as a whole.

 Now I'll try, from my experience but not first hand knowledge, to point out to you where I think you are probably being lied to by this patient. Firstly, I suggest you review all the questions I put to you in the last e mail, and ask yourself where your information comes from. Unless you have some form of independent verification, you cannot necessarily trust what this patient is telling you.

 Patients are not forced to take medication because stories are published about them in the paper. This is very close to being totally unbelievable.

The patient claims that the RMO wants to move her off the parole ward but also that the RMO wants to discharge her to a less secure RSU. These are two opposite actions and the assertions therefore make no sense.

Although the patient claims her mental state has never been independently assessed, it is a fact that it will have been for her original detention, for every renewal thereafter, and at each time she applies to a MHRT. Over the 23 years she has been at Broadmoor, how many different doctors have seen her and concurred in her treatment? I should think somewhere between 10 and 20. Maybe more. Supported by reports from many, many nurses.

People are never detained in hospital under the mental health act, simply because they do not admit to being mentally ill. To assert so implies that the professional care teams (including nurses) are nasty, vicious and moronic.

The patient asserts she wants to get home, back to her family, but refuses to take the necessary steps to get there – a stay on an RSU (nicer places than Broadmoor) followed by gradually increasing leaves of absence and then full discharge should things work out well.

 I still think that it is highly likely that you are being lied to and manipulated. Give it some thought. I'll be happy to correspond again if you want.

 Len

 The following is the message to which Len Bowers' responded:

-----Original Message-----
From: psychiatric-nursing-request@... [mailto:psychiatric-nursing-request@...]On Behalf Of Rosemary Moore
Sent: 07 September 2000 17:24
To: psychiatric-nursing@...
Subject: Fw: [forensic-psychiatric-nursing] Janet Cresswell in Broadmoor

From: Rosemary Moore

To: uksurvivors@egroups.com

Cc: mentalhealthlaw@egroups.com ; psychiatric-nursing@... ; forensic-psychiatric-nursing@egroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@egroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 4:56 PM

Subject: [forensic-psychiatric-nursing] Janet Cresswell in Broadmoor

Dear groups

 

I am sending this message to all five groups because I think it is of general concern.   Please look at the Independent newspaper story of 23 April (Playwright held in Broadmoor forced to take 'zombie' drugs) which Simon Heyes referred to the uksurvivors board in his message (No. 478 in April): 

 http://www.independent.co.uk/enjoyment/Books/News/playwright230400.shtml. 

As this story states, Janet Cresswell was forced to take medication following an earlier story published by the Independent about her wordprocessor being confiscated. 

 

Janet Cresswell has been detained in Broadmoor for over 23 years and I have been in contact with her by correspondence and visits since May of this year.   During this time I have received 14 letters from her - the latest being the attached letter dated 2 September which is a typed copy of  her handwritten letter.  You can see from this that because she has now managed to refuse to take the medication, her RMO wants to transfer her from the "parole" ward.

 

I have a written authorisation from Janet to act on her behalf and I have been corresponding with the Chief Executive of Broadmoor, the Mental Health Act Commission, her MP Glenda Jackson, and Eileen Gordon MP (who is a member of the Health Select Committee).  I also wrote on 14 August to Mr Mike Boyle who is the Head of the Mental Health Unit of the Home Office.  So far, I have had no acknowledgement from Mr Boyle.  The gist of my letter to Mr Boyle was that I referred to the evidence he gave to the Health Select Committee on 18 May when he was questioned on the release of patients.  He had responded that as a non-medical person "...we are perfectly content to accept the judgment of the care teams as to the state of the prisoner (sic) the treatment that is needed and their judgment as to the likely prognosis."  He also stated that the Home Office would not refuse to discharge a patient "...where that is otherwise justified on the patient's mental health and the risk to the public.  If those two factors are satisfied we will never prevent a patient from leaving."  

 

Janet Cresswell has always maintained that she is NOT mentally ill but has been unable to obtain a truly independent assessment of her health and the Home Office simply accepts what the hospital says about Janet's health.  The Mental Health Act Commission has completely failed to address Janet's complaints and as I write this I am waiting for the Commissioner responsible for Broadmoor to phone me back about my last letter to them dated 11 August which so far has not been dealt with, apart from an acknowledgement.

 

It is probably assumed - particularly from today's posting from Jan Wallcraft today on the uksurvivors board - that effective advocacy is provided in such institutions and that UKAN (United Kingdom Advocacy Network) is overseeing this.  In fact, Janet Cresswell is completely unsupported, apart from my unsuccessful attempts to help her.  For example, in her letter to me dated 20 August she said - I had asked her if she had any contact with WISH (Women in Special Hospitals):  "WISH reps come in here on a regular basis and, if I get to the Women's User Group meeting next Friday will no doubt meet up with a couple of their visitors.  It's difficult getting anywhere from this ward as there are often only two staff.  I can't even get to the dentist easily if at all.  Mad to realise that high dependency wards with more staff are more able to escort their charges around.  My concern at the moment is that the Response to the Tilt Report from the female wing, ie the Women's User Group, has/hasn't been sent to the appropriate people, merely circulated round this place.  UKAN in Sheffield say they can put the matter on their AGM agenda provided that WUG is a UKAN member group.  Trying to confirm this is like talking to myself."

Janet also says in the same letter:  "The MHA stipulates that unless statements are made through solicitors or those with medical qualifications tribunals can ignore what is said.  This is one of my many beefs at the system.  On  face of it, if the MHA can be taken literally, there's no purpose in a patient saying anything unless parroted by a solicitor."

 

In respect of this last comment, I'd like to take the solicitor, Peter Edwards, up on the offer in his message to me below (22 June) on the uksurvivors board for "further dialogue". 

 

I would also ask for assistance from the rest of you.  Janet Cresswell was punished after the first story in the Independent and is still in great difficulty.  She is a 68-year old woman who has been incarcerated since her mid-forties simply because she refuses to accept a diagnosis of mental illness.  Had she done so, she would more than likely have been released by now.  She has made a list of the physical harm she has suffered as a result of medication and ECT.  

The present situation is that Janet has a home she can go to and a family she wants to be with.  The authorities maintain that she requires psychiatric medication and want to send her to a Regional Secure Unit - which horrifies her. 

 

Would Peter Edwards and any other solicitors be willing to assist in seeing that Janet Cresswell obtains an independent psychiatric assessment?  And would other people on these lists please write to the Mental Health Act Commission (Maid Marian House, 56 Hounds Gate, Nottingham NG1 6BG) and the Home Office (56 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT) to support this?  You can of course also write to Janet directly at Broadmoor or to Broadmoor's Chief Executive, Dr Julie Hollyman.

 

I have promised Janet for some time that I would be publicising her case on the Net but the reactions to a couple of postings have been so negative that I felt nervous about saying any more.  But now, after months of correspondence with the hospital, MHAC and the MP's - and not getting any response from the Home Office, I think it's the only way of helping her.

 

Rosemary

                                  

From: Peter Edwards

To: uksurvivors@egroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 10:18 AM

Subject: [uksurvivors] Re: [mentalhealthlaw] Picket of the British Medical Association Annual General Meeting

Dear Rosemary Moore,

 

My name is Peter Edwards and I run one of the countries very few mental health / civil rights law firms. I have been fighting for the rights of service users for 30 years. They have been let down by just about everyone. I was on the Council of MIND. I fear they are no longer the radical service users charity (if they ever where). Their heyday was in the days of Larry Gostin and Tony Smythe. I was on the Central Policy Committee of the Mental Health Act Commission before I came to realises that they do more harm than good. I am particularly concerned about the pressures on doctors to give old fashioned and outdated drugs which have horrendous side effects when (expensive) alternatives are available. I understand that NICE and the RCof Psych will be reinforcing this shortly.

 

I am now of the view that one of the most potent weapons available is litigation, especially with the provisions of the Human Rights Act coming into effect in October. Service users need to consider whetyher ther is a legal remedy for the percieved injustices that are being experienced. At present I am co-ordinating a litigation strategy against Ashworth Hospital.Clearly two Inquiries have made littlle impact.

 

If you would like further dialogue do get in touch,

 

Peter Edwards

Solicitor

peter@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: uksurvivors@egroups.com

Cc: mentalhealthlaw@egroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@egroups.com ; forensic-psychiatric-nursing@egroups.com ; psychiatric-nursing@...

Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 9:34 PM

Subject: [mentalhealthlaw] Picket of the British Medical Association Annual General Meeting

Dear uksurvivors -

I am copying this message to the mentalhealthlaw,criticalpsychiatry,forensicnursing and psychiatricnursing boards, as I think the issues are relevant to all.

The message below - No 722 on the survivor board - from GLAD (Greater London Action on Disability) -  informs us that Incapacity Action will be picketing the BMA's agm on Monday, 26 June. I also attach a one-page document which KATE ADAMS of Incapacity Action brought with her to the 7 June House of Commons lobby fronted by MIND.  As you know, the lobby on 7 June was ostensibly to protest about the Government's plans to introduce compulsory medication in the community.  A mental health alliance was formed just for this purpose with a large number of organisations represented, with the notable exception of SANE.  This event was heavily publicised - I received numerous notifications of it -  and a 1,000 people turned up.  Every senior manager, as well as key staff, from both MIND and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (NSF) were there directing operations, as well as the Mental Health Foundation (who apparently formed the Alliance).  Now that the lobby is over the Alliance seems to have been disbanded, (like the Alliance which was similarly formed to combat the Community Supervision Order in 1993 - which of course subsequently became law in a modified form). 

At the lobby we were pressured to lobby our MPs.  At the same time speeches were being made in the Committee Room by an MP or two and various representatives from the charities, nursing and social work professional organisations and key users in MIND and NSF.  Also, in what is called the Jubilee Room - away from the speech makers -  users were encouraged to make personal testimonials.  I listened to quite a bit in Committee Room and then went to the Jubilee Room which was packed,  with JUDI CLEMENTS in charge.  By the time I got there, the filming of the speakers (I think by the Mental Health Foundation) had ended but the testimonials continued for another hour or so.  During this time, IAN McDONALD spoke about his terrible difficulties over the benefit rules and later KATE ADAMS challenged JUDI CLEMENTS over MIND's acceptance of the Single Gateway (see the attachment).  I am very disappointed that this very important issue has not been taken up by anyone.  I am also disappointed that nothing has happened about the appeal from one of the last speakers that the stories told in the Jubilee Room should be heard outside.  JUDI CLEMENTS seemed nonplussed by this idea.    But someone from CriticalPsychiatry (I understand it was DUNCAN DOUBLE) offered to put these stories up on his website and gave us his web address.  I wrote to CriticalPsychiatry later that day asking them to publicise Janet Cresswell's plight (in Broadmoor for 23 years), but have had no response other than "good luck with your campaign".  

I hope people will support KATE ADAMS and her colleagues in standing up against this harassment of vulnerable people. It is difficult enough for fit people to cope with the benefits system and I know myself of people who have been driven to suicide because of the stress of it all.  I must say that I think Kate is a particularly admirable person as she suffers from ME (chronic fatigue) and yet still campaigns for others. A few days ago she told me in a letter that "Our activities are very limited basically because I am very unwell and Cathy and Ian who back me up are in a similar postion.  We had more groups around the country several years ago but those folded up due to ill health and burn out....at least we have challenged MIND's involvement with the Gateway, but perhaps a letter with more signatures, followed by a visible protest might have more impact."   

Rosemary Moore  

----- Original Message -----

From: GLAD

To: uksurvivors group

Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 2:42 PM

Subject: [uksurvivors] Picket of the British Medical Association Annual General Meeting

Just to let people know that Incapacity Action are holding a picket of the BMA's agm on Monday 26th June.    The agm is held at Queen Elizabeth II conference centre opposite Westminster Abbey.

 

People are invited to come along.   Meet up at the open air coffee bar in Dean's Yard at the Abbey.  From midday. Contacts are Cathy Blight and Ian McDonald.

 

The message for doctors is that people are against:  the All-Work test, having their benefits constantly reviewed, against privatisation (the Sema scandal).   And the call is for doctors to boycott the personal capacity test.     People want doctors to be loyal to their patients rather than collude with Government cutbacks or privatised firms.

 

 

Greater London Action on Disability (GLAD)
336 Brixton Road
London SW9 7AA

 

Tel:  020 7346 5800
Minicom: 020 7346 5811
Fax: 020 7346 5810
Email: glad@...